Implant-supported Removable Partial Dentures Research Articles

Implant-supported removable partial dentures compared to conventional dentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis of quality of life, patient satisfaction, and biomechanical complications.

ObjectivesThe purpose of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to compare implant‐supported removable partial dentures (ISRPDs) with distal extension removable partial dentures (DERPDs) in terms of patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs: patients' quality of life and satisfaction) and to determine mechanical and biological complications associated with ISRPDs.Material and MethodsAn electronic search was performed on four databases to identify studies treating Kennedy class I or II edentulous patients and which compared ISRPDs with DERPDs in terms of PROMS and studies, which evaluated mechanical and biological complications associated ISRPDs. Two authors independently extracted data on quality of life, patient satisfaction, and biomechanical complications from these studies. The risk of bias was assessed for each study, and for PROMs, the authors performed a meta‐analysis by using a random‐effects model.ResultsThirteen articles were included based on the selection criteria. The difference in mean scores for quality of life (30.5 ± 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24.9–36.1) and patient satisfaction (−20.8 ± 0.2; 95% CI, −23.7 to −17.8) between treatments with conventional and implant‐supported removable dentures was statistically significant (p < .05). Implant‐supported removable dentures improved patients' overall quality of life and satisfaction. Some mechanical and biological complications, such as clasp adjustment, abutment or implant loosening, marginal bone resorption, and peri‐implant mucositis, were noted in ISRPDs during patient follow‐up. Studies assessing PROMs were very heterogeneous (I 2 = 65%, p = .85; I 2 = 75%, p = .88).ConclusionsISRPDs significantly improved quality of life and patient satisfaction. Some mechanical and biological complications have been associated with ISRPDs treatment, requiring regular monitoring of patients to avoid the occurrence of these complications.

Traditional Removable Partial Dentures versus Implant-Supported Removable Partial Dentures: A Retrospective, Observational Oral Health-Related Quality-of-Life Study

Removable partial dentures (RPD) are still a valid alternative for the restoration of missing teeth. Additionally, implant-supported removable partial dentures (ISRPD) represent a valid alternative as it allows to avoid the use of clasps and increase stability. The objective of this study was to evaluate through an OHIP-14 questionnaire the level of satisfaction and quality of life (QoL) of patients treated before RPD and then with ISRPD. Twenty patients were rehabilitated with traditional RPDs, and after one year the prosthesis was modified into ISRPD, by inserting an implant and a ball or locator attachment. At the end of both phases, patients completed the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) questionnaire. The collected data were statistically analyzed through the Wilcoxon U test, as overall OHIP score and difference between treatments. The mean of the OHIP summary (range from 0 to 56) in the RPD Group was 20.95 (±5.27). In the ISRPD Group it was 13.95 (±3.91), with a statistically significant difference (p &lt; 0.05) between the two Groups. The same findings were highlighted for the differences between groups in every domain question. Patients showed significant improvements after rehabilitation in all areas of investigation, stating how the transformation of a removable prosthesis into an implant-supported one can improve patients’ QoL with benefits in chewing ability, aesthetics and self-satisfaction.

Stress Analysis of Implant-Supported Removable Partial Denture with Anterior Fixed Prostheses and Conventional Implant-Supported Overdentures in the Edentulous Mandible

Aim: To compare new design implant-supported removable partial dentures retained with anterior fixed prosthesis with a conventional locater and bar attached implant overdenture prostheses retained by two or four implants via photoelastic stress analysis. Materials and Methods: Seven edentulous mandibuler acryclic models prepared and divided into two main groups; two to four implant models, subgroup separation as stated; for two implant models overdenture with locator attachment, crown design retained removable prosthesis with clasp retention, bridge design retained removable prosthesis with clasp retention, bridge design retained removable prosthesis with precision attachment retention; and for four implant models prosthesis with bar attachment overdenture, fixed bridge design retained removable prosthesis with clasp retention, fixed retained removable prosthesis with precision attachment retention. A 300 N load was applied to the first premolars. Photoelastic stress analysis method that is a specific method concerning stress visualization, and does not require statistical analysis, was used. The stress distributions were seen in optically using a poloriscope. Results: In the models with two implant-retained removable partial dentures, the stress distribution was found to be lower than that with the four implant-retained removable partial dentures. Nonsplinted implants caused high stress around the distal implant on the loading side. Conclusion: The stress loads were transmitted to other implants by splinting. Implant-supported removable partial dentures with an anterior fixed prosthetic design show lower stress distributions compared with bar retained prosthesis. These dentures appear to be advantageous in terms of stress transmission.

In Vitro Assessment of the Effect of Implant Position on Biomechanical Behaviors of Implant-Supported Removable Partial Dentures in Kennedy Class II Condition.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of implant position and loading position on biomechanical behaviors using implant-supported removable partial denture (ISRPD) models in a simulated Kennedy class Ⅱ partially edentulous mandible. Three types of Kennedy class Ⅱ mandibular acrylic resin models (a conventional RPD without support by an implant—CRPD; models with an implant placed at first molar (#46)—MP-ISRPD— and second molar (#47)—DP-ISRPD) were used to measure vertical displacement of the RPD, mesio-distal displacement of the abutment tooth, and bending moment of the abutment tooth and implant under one-point loading. The variables at three respective loading points (#45, #46 and #47) were compared statistically. Vertical displacement was suppressed in ISRPDs compared to the CRPD, and significant effects were identified under loading at the implant position. The largest meiso-distal displacement was observed in MP-ISRPD under #47 loading. Bending moments of the abutment tooth and implant were significantly higher in MP-ISRPD than in DP-ISPRD. In MP-ISRPD, a higher bending moment of the abutment tooth under #45 and #47 loading was detected, although the bending moment in DP-ISRPD was almost zero. The results of this study suggested that MP-ISRPD shows the specific biomechanical behaviors, although DP-ISRPD might provide biomechanical benefits under all one-point loading conditions.

Influence of rigidity of retainers on dynamic behavior of implant-supported removable partial dentures

BackgroundImplant-supported removable partial dentures (ISRPDs) are an effective treatment for partially edentulous patients. ISRPDs improve patients’ satisfaction and oral function to a greater extent than RPDs by improving denture stability and enhancing support. However, the effect of a type of direct retainer on displacement of the abutment teeth and dentures in ISRPDs remains unclear. Therefore, we made a resin mandibular model of unilateral mandibular distal-extension partial edentulism for mechanical simulation and compared the dynamic behavior of the abutment teeth and the denture base among different tooth-borne retainers with various rigidities for RPDs and ISRPDs.MethodsA resin mandibular model for mechanical simulation that had unilateral mandibular distal-extension edentulism and was missing the first molar, second molar, first premolar, and second premolar, and a denture fabricated from the patient’s computed tomography images were used. Three types of direct retainers with different connecting rigidities were evaluated. The vertical displacement of the denture base and buccal and lingual sides and the mesial displacement of the abutment teeth were measured.ResultsRegardless of the rigidity of the direct retainers and loading positions, the displacement of the denture bases in the ISRPDs was significantly smaller than that in the RPDs (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in vertical displacement of the denture bases among direct retainers with various connecting rigidities in the ISRPDs. Conversely, horizontal displacement of the abutment teeth in both the RPDs and ISRPDs tended to be larger with the cone crown telescope, which has high rigidity, than with the cast cingulum rest and wire clasp, which have much lower rigidities.ConclusionOur results suggested that cast cingulum rest and wire clasps as direct retainers are appropriate ISRPDs to minimize denture movement and suppress displacement of the remaining teeth in patients with unilateral mandibular distal-extension partial edentulism.

An implant-supported removable partial denture: A viable option to rehabilitate partially edentulous geriatric patients

Esthetics, phonetics mastication, and preservation of remaining alveolar bone are the goals of a prosthodontist while rehabilitating a patient with removable partial dentures (RPDs). Dental implants provide better retention, stability, and esthetics for partial dentures when compared to conventional tooth and tissue-supported partial dentures. They are predictable, meet the patient's expectations, and improve quality of life. Over the decades, there have been tremendous advancements in implant dentistry. This clinical report presents a case where the patient was rehabilitated with implant-supported RPDs in both maxillary and mandibular arches.

Clinical Evaluation of Implant-Supported Removable Partial Dentures With a Stress-Breaking Attachment.

The stress-breaking ball (SBB) attachment can distribute the occlusal force equally between the alveolar ridge and the implants. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implant-supported distal extension removable partial dentures (RPDs) with SBB attachment in 10 patients who were partially edentulous. This randomized crossover study was designed to compare the function of RPDs with and without healing abutments and SBB attachments to support the posterior aspects of the RPDs. Mandibular jaw movements during mastication and the occlusal force and contact area were measured with a commercially available tracking device and pressure-sensitive sheets. Using a visual analog scale, 4 criteria-chewing, retention, stability, and comfort-were evaluated. All of the data obtained were analyzed using a 1-way analysis of variance (α = 0.05). There were no significant differences in either the mean time or the coefficient of variation among the SBB attachments and healing abutments of implant-supported removable partial dentures (ISRPDs) and conventional removable partial dentures (CRPDs). SBB attachments and healing abutments of ISRPDs had greater forces and contact areas than those of CRPDs with significant differences. For all criteria, patients preferred SBB attachments to healing abutments and CRPDs. The implant-supported distal extension RPDs with SBB attachment improved denture stability and patients' satisfaction.

Hora est 10. Implantaat ondersteunde frame­prothesen in een Kennedy klasse I-situatie in de onderkaak

Implant-supported removable partial dentures in the mandible often cause problems, which means that patients wear their dentures seldom if at all. A solution is to place implants that the dentures can be snapped onto. There is, however, no consensus about the best position of the implants in the mandible yet. In addition, it is worthwhile to balance the cost of treatment with its effectiveness. In a randomised cross-over clinical trial involving 30 patients with a shortened dental arch, the implant-supported removable partial denture in the mandible was evaluated based on the experience of the patient, mean time of wearing, chewing ability and the clinical and radiographic parameters in relation to 2 different implant positions: 2 in the pre-molar region or 2 in the molar region. The cost-effectiveness of both treatments was also evaluated. From the patient's point of view, the implant-supported removable partial dentures are best supported by implants placed in the molar region. The research also revealed, however, that significantly more bleeding occurred around implants placed in the molar region and from a clinical perspective placement in the pre-molar region would have preference. The cost-effectiveness of the treatment with an implant-supported removable partial denture depends on the choice of outcome measurement and monetary threshold.

Implant-supported removable partial dentures in the mandible: A 3–16 year retrospective study

PurposeThe purpose of this retrospective study was to assess performance, together with biological and technical complications, of implant-supported removable partial dentures (ISRPD) in mandibular Kennedy class I situations with implants placed in the anterior or posterior position. Methods23 subjects with two endosseous implants to support a bilateral-free-ending mandibular removable denture were examined. Eight subjects had implants in the premolar (anterior) region and 15 subjects implants in the molar (posterior) region. Biological and technical complications were recorded from the patients’ medical record. Patients filled out a validated questionnaire regarding their appreciation of oral health related quality of life (OHIP-NL49) and a VAS score on overall satisfaction. ResultsOver a mean follow-up period of 8 years (median 8 years, range 3–16 years) the cumulative implant survival rate was 91.7% (SE 0.05). Mean peri-implant bone loss was 0.9mm (SD 1.0mm). Scores for bleeding on probing, plaque and mucosal health were generally low, but significantly worse for posteriorly placed implants. Significantly more biological complications occurred in the posterior group (X2(1)=3.9; p=0.048). In 65% of the cases no technical complications were registered. Mean overall OHIP score was 16.1 (SD 18.4) and patients were highly satisfied (VAS: 8.4; SD 2.1). ConclusionsWithin the limitations of this retrospective study, in case of a Kennedy class I situation in the mandible, an ISRPD is a viable treatment option with a high implant survival rate and satisfied patients after a maximum of 16 years. Technical and biological complications should be anticipated. Anteriorly placed implants performed slightly better.

Cost-effectiveness of implant-supported mandibular removable partial dentures.

The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing conventional removable partial dentures (RPDs) and implant-supported RPDs (ISRPDs) treatment in patients with an edentulous maxilla and a bilateral free-ending situation in the mandible. Thirty subjects were included. A new RPD was made and implant support was provided 3months later. Treatment costs (opportunity costs and costs based on tariffs) were calculated. Treatment effect was expressed by means of the Dutch Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaire (OHIP-NL49), a chewing ability test (Mixing Ability Index, MAI) and a short-form health survey measuring perceived general health (SF-36), which was subsequently converted into quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the primary outcome measure of cost-effectiveness, comparing both treatment strategies. The mean total opportunity costs were €981 (95% CI €971-€991) for the RPD treatment and €2.480 (95% CI €2.461-€2.500) for the ISRPD treatment. The total costs derived from the national tariff structure were €850 for the RPD treatment and €2.610 for the ISRPD treatment. The ICER for OHIP-NL49 and MAI using the opportunity costs was €80 and €786, respectively. When using the tariff structure, corresponding ICERs were €94 and €921. The effect of supporting an RPD with implants when expressed in QALYs was negligible; hence an ICER was not determined. It is concluded that depending on the choice of outcome measure and monetary threshold, supporting an RPD with implants is cost-effective when payers are willing to pay more than €80 per OHIP point gained. Per MAI point gained, an additional €786 has to be invested.

Implant-Supported Removable Partial Denture Improves the Quality of Life of Patients with Extreme Tooth Loss.

This study aimed to evaluate oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in partially dentate subjects, presenting extreme tooth loss in posterior region with missing post-canines, comparing the use of conventional removable partial dentures (RPDs) and implant-supported RPDs. OHRQoL was measured using the Brazilian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile. Twelve subjects presenting maxillary total and mandibular Kennedy Class I edentulism (mean age 62.6±7.8 years) first received complete maxillary dentures and conventional mandibular free-end RPDs. After two months, the subjects had their OHRQoL assessed. Osseointegrated implants were inserted bilaterally in the mandibular first molar regions, and after four months ball abutments were placed to support the free-end RPD. Two months later, the patients had their OHRQoL reassessed. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate differences in OHRQoL (α=0.05). Results showed improvement in all OHIP-49 domains (p<0.05) after associating implants to the RPD. The mandibular implant-supported free-end RPD significantly improved OHRQoL.

Influence of different prosthodontic rehabilitation options on oral health-related quality of life, orofacial esthetics and chewing function based on patient-reported outcomes.

The aim was to assess influence of different prosthodontic rehabilitation options on improvement of orofacial esthetics, chewing function (CF) and oral health-related quality of life. Patients treated with 70 conventional complete dentures (CDs), 38 implant-supported mandibular complete dentures opposed to maxillary CDs, 56 conventional removable partial dentures, 15 implant-supported removable partial dentures, 25 conventional fixed partial dentures (FPDs) and 59 implant-supported fixed partial dentures (IFPDs) were included. The survey was conducted using the three questionnaires: the OHIP-CRO14, the Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES-CRO) and the Chewing Function Questionnaire (CFQ), and administrated twice: at the baseline prior the therapy and 3 months after prosthodontic rehabilitation had been finished. The after-treatment scores were significantly better than the baseline scores (p < 0.001) for the OES, OHIP14 and CF questionnaires in all types of treatments. The two-factor ANOVA showed no significant difference for the OES after-treatment scores between different rehabilitation options and implant presence, but the OHIP14 and CFQ after-treatment scores were significantly better in FPD and IFPDs than in removable implant and conventional denture wearers. The score change was significantly higher in all implant removable denture patients for the OES, OHIP and CFQ. The lowest score change was registered in the FPD wearers. (p < 0.01). Removable denture implant patients most benefited from implant support, but IFPD and FPD had the best after-treatment scores. The assessed clinical parameters may help dentists in choice of the best rehabilitation option with the highest treatment effect.

Pressure distribution of implant-supported removable partial dentures with stress-breaking attachments

PurposeThis in vitro study investigated the pressure distribution of the implant-supported removable partial dentures (RPDs) with the stress-breaking attachments under the occlusal force. MethodsThe experimental model of bilateral missing premolars and molars was modified from a commercial simulation model. Five pressure sensors were embedded near the bilateral first molars, first premolars, and medio-lingual alveolar crest. Two implants were placed near the second molars, and they were connected to the denture base using the following conditions: complete separation between the denture base and implant with cover screws (CRPD), flexible connection with a stress-breaking ball (SBB) attachment, and rigid connection without stress breaking with healing caps (HC). The pressure at five different areas of the soft tissue and the displacement of the RPDs were simultaneously measured, loading up to 50N. The coefficient of variation (CV) for each connection was calculated from all data of the pressure at five areas to evaluate the pressure distribution. ResultsThe pressure on medio-lingual alveolar crest and molars of the HC was less than SBB and CRPD. In contrast, the pressure on premolars of SBB was greater than for the HC and CRPD. The CV of SBB was less than that of HC and CRPD. Denture displacement of HC and SBB was less than for CRPD. ConclusionsWithin the in vitro limitations, precise denture settlements and pressure distribution under the denture base could be controlled using an SBB attachment. An SBB attachment might be able to protect the implant from harmful force.

The effect of implant‐supported removable partial dentures on oral health quality of life

Removable partial dentures (RPDs) represent standard treatment for partial edentulism despite major shortcomings. To alleviate these shortcomings, endosseous implants provide support and stability as well as contribute to maintenance of alveolar bone. This prospective, within subject, time series study evaluated patient-based outcomes of RPDs compared to implant-supported removable partial dentures (ISRPDs). The study hypothesis was that the ISRPD would substantially improve oral health quality of life for patients. Seventeen patients requesting new mandibular Kennedy I or II RPDs received one 6-mm dental implant in one or both of the posterior edentulous areas. After healing, conventional RPDs were fabricated and delivered. Twelve weeks later, second-stage surgery was performed, and ball abutments with Clix attachments were inserted, thereby converting the prostheses to ISRPDs. Oral health quality of life was evaluated using the 49-item Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-49) questionnaire. The OHIP-49 was administered prior to treatment (baseline), at 6 and 12 weeks following RPD delivery and at 6 and 12 weeks following ISRPD conversion. Radiographic evaluation was performed at 6 and 12 weeks following ISRPD conversion. In statistical analysis, a fixed-slope random intercept variance components model took account of the multiple observations per person over time. In 17 subjects, 29 of 30 implants survived. The failed implant was replaced without complications. Abutment complications were limited to one abutment loosening and one attachment replacement. Minor prosthodontic complications were recorded. The OHIP-49 score reduced by 11.8 points, on average, at 12 weeks following ISRPD conversion (P = 0.011). Patients reported improved oral health following conversion to an ISRPD from RPD. The ISRPD involving short implants is one treatment option that should be considered when treatment planning Kennedy Class I and II patients.

Clinical Effectiveness of Implant-Supported Removable Partial Dentures—A Review of the Literature and Retrospective Case Evaluation

To review the published data on the treatment outcomes of restoring the partially edentulous patient with implant-supported removable partial dentures (ISRPDs) and describe the concept of ISRPDs and the clinical guidelines for placing implants for ISRPDs, and evaluate case series results. For the review, a literature search was performed using the PubMed and Ovid databases. Reports in English from 1969 to 2008 were considered. Also, 35 patients have had their dentition restored with ISRPDs supported by 67 implants. These patients were evaluated in terms of implant and teeth survival. The data from the published reports and the presented case series suggest that the incorporation of dental implants into removable partial dentures could be an optional treatment plan for the partially edentulous patient to improve function and patient satisfaction. ISRPDs provide patients with stable, long-term predictable prostheses. This treatment alternative should be considered whenever fixed restorations are not a valid option. Strict maintenance and a follow-up protocol are recommended to obtain satisfactory results. Longitudinal clinical studies are required for evaluation of ISRPDs.

Fixed removable prosthesis employing Marburg double crown system

The ultimate objective of the fabrication of a partial prosthetic appliance is the preservation of the remaining teeth while lost function is being restored. Double crown is an effective type of retainer that provides retention, support and a splinting action between multiple abutment teeth. Double crowns with clearance fit are used to retain tooth-mucosa and implant-supported removable partial dentures (RPDs). Retention is achieved by either functional molded borders or additional attachment. The double crown system retains dentures more effectively than do conventional clasp-retained RPDs, and also shows more favorable transmission of occlusal loading to the long axis of the abutment teeth. This case report will highlight the use of Marburg double crown system in the treatment of partially edentulous patients.

O.329 The sphere of application of the radial flap in facial reconstruction

The purpose of this retrospective study was to assess performance, together with biological and technical complications, of implant-supported removable partial dentures (ISRPD) in mandibular Kennedy class I situations with implants placed in the anterior or posterior position.23 subjects with two endosseous implants to support a bilateral-free-ending mandibular removable denture were examined. Eight subjects had implants in the premolar (anterior) region and 15 subjects implants in the molar (posterior) region. Biological and technical complications were recorded from the patients’ medical record. Patients filled out a validated questionnaire regarding their appreciation of oral health related quality of life (OHIP-NL49) and a VAS score on overall satisfaction.Over a mean follow-up period of 8 years (median 8 years, range 3–16 years) the cumulative implant survival rate was 91.7% (SE 0.05). Mean peri-implant bone loss was 0.9 mm (SD 1.0 mm). Scores for bleeding on probing, plaque and mucosal health were generally low, but significantly worse for posteriorly placed implants. Significantly more biological complications occurred in the posterior group (X2(1) = 3.9; p = 0.048). In 65% of the cases no technical complications were registered. Mean overall OHIP score was 16.1 (SD 18.4) and patients were highly satisfied (VAS: 8.4; SD 2.1).Within the limitations of this retrospective study, in case of a Kennedy class I situation in the mandible, an ISRPD is a viable treatment option with a high implant survival rate and satisfied patients after a maximum of 16 years. Technical and biological complications should be anticipated. Anteriorly placed implants performed slightly better.

Effect of implant support on distal extension removable partial dentures: in vitro assessment

The implants in implant-supported removable partial dentures (RPDs) are placed in the edentulous ridge to stabilize the RPD and minimize the resultant rotational movement. This study investigated the effect of implant placement on RPD stability. A model simulating a mandibular bilateral distal extension missing was fabricated using epoxy resin and silicone impression material as thin (1 mm) and thick (2 mm) soft tissues. Five pressure sensors (PS-10K, Kyowa, Tokyo, Japan) were attached near the left and right first molars (#36 and #46), first premolars (#34 and #44) and medio-lingual alveolar crest. Five bilateral distal extension RPDs with Co-Cr frameworks were conventionally fabricated. After the implants were placed at the bilateral second molar areas, healing caps (4.5 mm high) were connected to the denture base with autopolymerized resin to support the RPD. As in a conventional RPD, sealing screws were placed without connecting them. Loads up to 5 kg were applied, and the pressure and displacement of the RPDs (n = 5) were simultaneously measured and analysed using the Wilcoxen test (alpha = 0.05). There was less pressure on both thin and thick soft tissues, the #36, #46 and the medio-lingual alveolar crest from the implant-supported RPD than from the conventional RPD (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in pressure on #34 and #44 between the two RPDs (P > 0.05). There was significantly less denture displacement of the implant-supported RPD than of the conventional denture (P < 0.05). Implant support helped prevent the displacement of distal extension RPDs and decreased the pressure on soft tissues.