Five years clinical outcome of maxillary mini dental implant overdenture treatment: A prospective multicenter clinical cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The long-term clinical outcome of mini dental implants (MDIs) to support an overdenture is underreported especially in severely atrophic maxillae and when installed flaplessly. PURPOSE: The current report is a 5-years follow-up of the previously published 2- and 3-years clinical outcome of MDIs supporting a maxillary overdenture in narrow alveolar ridges. MDI survival, marginal bone level, peri-implant health, technical complications, and oral health related quality of life (OHIP) and respective changes over time are reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects aged 50 years or older, in need of improvement of maxillary denture retention, were included. The MDIs were 2.4 mm diameter one-piece tapered implants, Class 4 pure Titanium, and lengths 10 or 11.5 mm. Under local anesthesia, 5-6 MDIs were placed in atrophic maxillae with a free-handed flapless approach. One week postoperative the denture was adapted with a retentive soft reliner. The final prosthetic connection was established after 6 months with a metal-reinforced horse-shoe denture. Clinical outcome after 5 years was assessed with probing pocket depts (PPD), bleeding on probing (BoP), and additional cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) MDI bone level measurements were performed. Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) investigated with OHIP-14 was assessed preoperative, during provisional loading, and after final prosthetic connection up to 5 years. RESULTS: Initially, 31 patients (14 females and 17 males) with mean age 62.30 underwent treatment. In the provisional loading interval, 16 patients encountered 32/185 MDIs failures, resulting in a failure of 17.3%; 170 MDIs were functionally loaded in 29 patients. Additionally, 14 implants were lost in three patients, all of whom had had already previous failures. Reimplantation of 17 MDIs were performed during the provisional loading and 2 MDI after functional loading. After 5 years, the absolute implant failure rate was 46/204 (22.5%), corresponding to a cumulative failure rate of 23.2%. Prosthetic failure was observed in four patients due to implant loss and in two patients related to excessive one-piece implant ball attachment wear, making the 5-years prosthetic success 80.0%. The mean PPD and absence/presence of BoP for 149 implants at 5 years was 4.3 and 0.2 mm, respectively. Average mesial-distal-vestibular-palatal bone loss in the interval 2-5 years was 0.08 mm. No statistically significant difference in marginal MDI bone loss between male or female (p = 0.835), smoking and nonsmoking (p = 0.666) was observed. The five-years total measured CBCT interdental bone level (mesial and distal) correlates with the 5-years PPD (Pearson 0.434; p = 0.01). After 5 years, OHRQoL with the treatment procedure was assessed in 27/31 participants. Decreasing mean total OHIP-14 scores with improved OHRQoL, was observed in 27/31 participants, with values of 21.3 at baseline to 15.6 at the time of provisional loading which significantly (p = 0.006) decrease to 7.3 at the final prosthetic connection. The next 3-5 years further decrease was observed with 6.5 and 4.96, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Maxillary MDIs for overdentures are an accessible and acceptable treatment option. Although after 5 years between one fifth and one fourth of the MDIs were lost, prosthetic success remains 80.0% and high OHRQoL could be achieved.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".