The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants · 2026
Effect of the Number of Mini-Dental Implants on the Bone Height Level in Mandibles Rehabilitated with Mini-Implant-Retained Overdentures: A Cohort Clinical Study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Elbelacy Heba, Gaber Mona Samir, Fernandes Gustavo Vicentis Oliveira, Rahhal Mohamed
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the bone level around implant-retained overdentures (IODs), comparing rehabilitations with three or four implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 24 edentulous participants between 60 and 70 years old were selected for this study; the patents had adequate rounded ridges and bone-level height and width. The participants were divided into two groups: Group 1 received four mini-implants placed in the interforaminal area retaining mandibular overdentures, and Group 2 received three mini-implants placed in the interforaminal area. Patients underwent surgical procedures, postoperative care, and follow-up evaluations for over 1 year to assess implant stability and bone-level changes. Patients were recalled for reevaluation and adjustments at 6, 9, and 12 months for clinical assessment and analysis of the marginal bone height changes around the implants. The statistical analysis used for the comparison of groups was independent t test; regarding the space between central and peripheral implants, paired t test was performed (significance level set at P ≤ .05).
RESULTS: When comparing the results between central and peripheral implants at different time points (6, 9, and 12 months), it revealed a nonsignificant difference in Group 1 at all time points and a significant difference only after 12 months in Group 2, in which the peripheral implant bone level was significantly higher than the central implant (P = .03). The intergroup evaluation revealed that Group 2 demonstrated significantly greater bone height levels than Group 1 (P = .0001). The bone level between central and peripheral implants decreased significantly in every successive time interval for all implants except the central implant of Group 1.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest distinct differences in bone-level changes between central and peripheral implants and between the two implant groups.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 24 edentulous participants between 60 and 70 years old were selected for this study; the patents had adequate rounded ridges and bone-level height and width. The participants were divided into two groups: Group 1 received four mini-implants placed in the interforaminal area retaining mandibular overdentures, and Group 2 received three mini-implants placed in the interforaminal area. Patients underwent surgical procedures, postoperative care, and follow-up evaluations for over 1 year to assess implant stability and bone-level changes. Patients were recalled for reevaluation and adjustments at 6, 9, and 12 months for clinical assessment and analysis of the marginal bone height changes around the implants. The statistical analysis used for the comparison of groups was independent t test; regarding the space between central and peripheral implants, paired t test was performed (significance level set at P ≤ .05).
RESULTS: When comparing the results between central and peripheral implants at different time points (6, 9, and 12 months), it revealed a nonsignificant difference in Group 1 at all time points and a significant difference only after 12 months in Group 2, in which the peripheral implant bone level was significantly higher than the central implant (P = .03). The intergroup evaluation revealed that Group 2 demonstrated significantly greater bone height levels than Group 1 (P = .0001). The bone level between central and peripheral implants decreased significantly in every successive time interval for all implants except the central implant of Group 1.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest distinct differences in bone-level changes between central and peripheral implants and between the two implant groups.