Implant‐supported mandibular removable partial dentures: functional, clinical and radiographical parameters in relation to implant position
C Jensen, CM Speksnijder… - … implant dentistry and …, 2017 - Wiley Online Library
Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2017•Wiley Online Library
Abstract Background Patients with a Kennedy class I situation often encounter problems with
their removable partial denture (RPD). Purpose To assess the functional benefits of implant
support to RPDs, the clinical performance of the implants and teeth and to determine the
most favorable implant position: the premolar (PM) or molar (M) region. Materials and
methods Thirty subjects received 2 PM and 2 M implants. A new RPD was made. Implant
support was provided 3 months later. In a cross‐over model, randomly, 2 implants (PM or M) …
their removable partial denture (RPD). Purpose To assess the functional benefits of implant
support to RPDs, the clinical performance of the implants and teeth and to determine the
most favorable implant position: the premolar (PM) or molar (M) region. Materials and
methods Thirty subjects received 2 PM and 2 M implants. A new RPD was made. Implant
support was provided 3 months later. In a cross‐over model, randomly, 2 implants (PM or M) …
Background
Patients with a Kennedy class I situation often encounter problems with their removable partial denture (RPD).
Purpose
To assess the functional benefits of implant support to RPDs, the clinical performance of the implants and teeth and to determine the most favorable implant position: the premolar (PM) or molar (M) region.
Materials and methods
Thirty subjects received 2 PM and 2 M implants. A new RPD was made. Implant support was provided 3 months later. In a cross‐over model, randomly, 2 implants (PM or M) supported the RPD during 3 months. Masticatory performance was assessed using the mixing ability index (MAI). Clinical and radiographic parameters were assessed. Non‐parametric statistical analysis for related samples and post hoc comparisons were performed.
Results
Masticatory performance differed significantly between the stages of treatment (P < .001). MAI‐scores improved with implant support although the implant position had no significant effect. No complications to the implants or RPD were observed and clinical and radiographical parameters for both implants and teeth were favorable. Higher scores for bleeding on probing were seen for molar implants.
Conclusions
Implant support to a Kennedy class I RPD significantly improves masticatory function, regardless of implant position. No major clinical problems were observed.
Wiley Online Library以上显示的是最相近的搜索结果。 查看全部搜索结果