Primär- versus sekundärverblockte Versorgung zahnloser Patienten

Zahnlose Patienten profitieren nach wie vor am meisten vom Einsatz zahnärztlicher Implantate und es existiert eine Vielzahl von Versorgungskonzepten. Prothetisch ist eine Primärverblockung durch eine Steg- oder Gerüststruktur zu unterscheiden von einer sekundären Verblockung über eine abnehmbare Prothese. Unterschiede existieren dabei hinsichtlich Herstellung, Platzbedarf, Hygienefähigkeit und Versteifungsgrad. Beide Verblockungsarten scheinen jedoch indikationsabhängig zu guten Ergebnissen zu führen.

• Literatur

• 1 Sánchez-Siles M, Ballester-Ferrandis JF, Salazar-Sánchez N. et al. Long-term evaluation of quality of life and satisfaction between implant bar overdentures and conventional complete dentures: A 23 years retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018; 20: 208-214
• 2 Sivolella S, Stellini E, Testori T. et al. Splinted and unsplinted short implants in mandibles: a retrospective evaluation with 5 to 16 years of follow-up. J Periodontol 2013; 84: 502-512
• 3 Sannino G, Bollero P, Barlattani A. et al. A Retrospective 2-Year Clinical Study of Immediate Prosthetic Rehabilitation of Edentulous Jaws with Four Implants and Prefabricated Bars. J Prosthodont 2017; 26: 387-394
• 4 Gherlone EF, Sannino G, Rapanelli A. et al. Prefabricated Bar System for Immediate Loading in Edentulous Patients: A 5-Year Follow-Up Prospective Longitudinal Study. Biomed Res Int 2018; 2018: 7352125
• 5 Ayna M, Gülses A, Acil Y. A comparative study on 7-year results of “All-on-Four” immediate-function concept for completely edentulous mandibles: metal-ceramic vs. bar-retained superstructures. Odontology 2018; 106: 73-82
• 6 Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Moy PK. Four-implant overdenture fully supported by a CAD-CAM titanium bar: A single-cohort prospective 1-year preliminary study. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 116: 516-523
• 7 Passia N, Wolfart S, Kern M. Ten-year clinical outcome of single implant-retained mandibular overdentures – A prospective pilot study. J Dent 2019; 82: 63-65
• 8 Kern JS, Kern T, Wolfart S. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of removable and fixed implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws: post-loading implant loss. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27: 174-195
• 9 Longhini D, Rocha COM, Oliveira NM. et al. Implant-supported double-bar overdenture to reestablish lip support in an atrophic maxilla: a case report. Gen Dent 2018; 66: 71-75
• 10 Bergkvist G. Immediate loading of implants in the edentulous maxilla. Swed Dent J 2008; 196 (Suppl.) 10-75
• 11 Romanos GE, Johansson CB. Immediate loading with complete implant-supported restorations in an edentulous heavy smoker: histologic and histomorphometric analyses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005; 20: 282-290
• 12 Romanos GE, May S, May D. Implant-supporting telescopic maxillary prostheses and immediate loading. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014; 16: 412-418
• 13 Alfadda SA, Chvartszaid D, AlFarraj Aldosari A. Clinical outcomes of immediately loaded implant-supported overdentures: A long-term prospective clinical trial. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 121: 911-915
• 14 Ter Gunne LP, Dikkes B, Wismeijer D. et al. Immediate and Early Loading of Two-Implant-Supported Mandibular Overdentures: Three-Year Report of Loading Results of a Single-Center Prospective Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016; 31: 1110-1116
• 15 Lian M, Zhao K, Wang F. et al. Stud vs. Bar Attachments for Maxillary Four-Implant-Supported Overdentures: 3- to 9-year Results from a Retrospective Study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019;
• 16 Baig MR. Accuracy of impressions of multiple implants in the edentulous arch: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29: 869-880
• 17 Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ. et al. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27: 465-472
• 18 Bidra AS, Agar JR. Management of misangulated implants for a maxillary overdenture with spherical abutments: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2011; 106: 209-213
• 19 Chen J, Tomotake Y, Watanabe M. et al. Telescopic magnetic attachment for implant-supported denture: evaluation of splint effect. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011; 26: 657-664
• 20 Krennmair G, Sütö D, Seemann R. et al. Removable four implant-supported mandibular overdentures rigidly retained with telescopic crowns or milled bars: a 3-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23: 481-488
• 21 Kappel S, Giannakopoulos NN, Eberhard L. et al. Immediate Loading of Dental Implants in Edentulous Mandibles by Use of Locator^® Attachments or Dolder^® Bars: Two-Year Results from a Prospective Randomized Clinical Study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016; 18: 752-761
• 22 Takahashi T, Gonda T, Maeda Y. Can Reinforcement of Maxillary Implant Overdentures Decrease Stress on Underlying Implants?. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017; 32: 63-69
• 23 Kimura T, Yang TC, Maeda Y. Influence of Rigid Bar and Nonrigid Double Crown Attachments on Maxillary Implant Overdentures: An In Vitro Study with Differential Bone Quality. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018; 33: 764-769
• 24 Sano M, Ikebe K, Yang TC. et al. Biomechanical rationale for six splinted implants in bilateral canine, premolar, and molar regions in an edentulous maxilla. Implant Dent 2012; 21: 220-224
• 25 Slot W, Raghoebar GM, Cune MS. et al. Maxillary overdentures supported by four or six implants in the anterior region: 5-year results from a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Periodontol 2016; 43: 1180-1187
• 26 Slot W, Raghoebar GM, Cune MS. et al. Four or six implants in the maxillary posterior region to support an overdenture: 5-year results from a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019; 30: 169-177
• 27 Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJ, Slot W. et al. A systematic review of implant-supported overdentures in the edentulous maxilla, compared to the mandible: how many implants?. Eur J Oral Implantol 2014; 7 (Suppl. 02) S191-S201
• 28 Sanna A, Nuytens P, Naert I. et al. Successful outcome of splinted implants supporting a ‘planned’ maxillary overdenture: a retrospective evaluation and comparison with fixed full dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20: 406-413
• 29 Elsyad MA, Denewar BA, Elsaih EA. Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Bar, Telescopic, and Locator Attachments for Implant-Stabilized Overdentures in Patients with Mandibular Atrophied Ridges: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018; 33: 1103-1111
• 30 Seo YH, Bae EB, Kim JW. et al. Clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures via Locator implant attachment and Locator bar attachment. J Adv Prosthodont 2016; 8: 313-320
• 31 Elsyad MA, Khirallah AS. Circumferential bone loss around splinted and nonsplinted immediately loaded implants retaining mandibular overdentures: A randomized controlled clinical trial using cone beam computed tomography. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 116: 741-748
• 32 Ben-Gal G, Ziv Y, Weiss EI. et al. Teaching mandibular implant-Supported overdentures in dental schools in North America – a survey. Eur J Dent Educ 2017; 21: 79-85
• 33 Bedrossian E, Bedrossian EA. Treatment Planning the Edentulous Mandible. Review of Biomechanical and Clinical Considerations: An Update. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019; 34: e33-e41
• 34 Drago C, Gurney L. Maintenance of implant hybrid prostheses: clinical and laboratory procedures. J Prosthodont 2013; 22: 28-35
• 35 Payne AG, Alsabeeha NH, Atieh MA. et al. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: attachment systems for implant overdentures in edentulous jaws. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018; (10) CD008001
• 36 Anas El-Wegoud M, Fayyad A, Kaddah A. et al. Bar versus ball attachments for implant-supported overdentures in complete edentulism: A systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018; 20: 243-250
• 37 Karabuda C, Yaltirik M, Bayraktar M. A clinical comparison of prosthetic complications of implant-supported overdentures with different attachment systems. Implant Dent 2008; 17: 74-81