Prosthetic complications with mandibular bar-retained implant overdentures having distal attachments and metal frameworks: A 2- to 12-year retrospective analysis

Gozde Ciftci,Suphi Deniz Somay,Işıl Ozcan,Tuncer Burak Ozcelik,Burak Yilmaz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.11.016

Abstract:Statement of problem: Long-term reports on 2-implant-retained overdentures having metal frameworks and bars containing distal attachments are scarce. Purpose: The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate prosthetic complications with 2-implant-retained mandibular overdentures with metal frameworks having either screw- or cement-retained cantilevered bars with distal attachments. Material and methods: Seventy-three edentulous study participants who had been treated with mandibular overdentures with 2 implants were included. The parameters assessed were acrylic resin fractures (base fracture, fracture at midline), debonding of teeth, opposing prosthesis fracture, need for relining or rebasing, abutment and bar screw loosening and fracture, ball or bar attachment or clip wear, fracture or detachment, bar fracture, and implant loss. Statistical analysis was performed by using the Mann-Whitney U test as the data were not normally distributed. The categorical variables between the groups were analyzed by using the Fisher exact test (α=.05). Results: Twenty-seven prostheses had a cement-retained bar, and 46 bars were screw-retained. Of 73 overdentures, 68 were metal-reinforced. The mean observation time was 5.9 years with a range between 2 and 12 years. The most common complication was wear of the Rhein 83 polymer attachment followed by bar screw loosening. The cumulative survival rate for overdentures was 91.9% at 6.8 years. The service life of cement-retained prostheses was significantly longer (P<.05). Bar, resin base, and mid-line fractures were only seen with cement-retained prostheses. The number of times an attachment change was required did not differ between cement- and screw-retained bars. Of 191 implants, 3 were lost, and the cumulative survival rate was 93.5% at 7.5 years. No significant difference was found between retention types in terms of implant loss (P>.05). Conclusions: Based on the participant population observed, the survival rates of 2-implant-retained mandibular overdentures and their implants in the medium term were high. Wear of the polymer attachment was commonly seen. Overdentures with cement-retained bars had bar or acrylic resin fractures. Mandibular 2-implant-retained overdentures with a screw-retained bar containing bilateral distal attachments had fewer prosthetic complications and high implant survival in the medium term.