Prosthesis and implant survival in immediately loaded full arch restorations using fiber-reinforced versus non-reinforced temporary frameworks: a randomized clinical trial / Sobrevivência de próteses e implantes em restaurações de arcada completa com carga imediata usando estruturas temporárias reforçadas com fibra versus estruturas temporárias não reforçadas: um ensaio clínico randomizado

Objective: To evaluate and compare prosthesis and implant survival in case of interim fixed complete dentures reinforced with fiber resin frameworks versus those that were not reinforced with any framework in case of immediately loaded full arch restorations in completely edentulous patients. Material and Methods: Thirty completely edentulous patients were randomly allocated into two parallel arm groups. Non-reinforced control group in which patients received non-reinforced all-on-four immediately loaded fixed complete denture and Fiber reinforced group in which patients received all-on-four fixed complete denture supported with glass-fiber reinforced resin framework. Prosthesis and implant survival were clinically evaluated after 4 months follow up period. Results: A statistically significant difference for prosthesis (p = 0.032) and implant survival (p = 0.031) was found between both groups. The fiber-reinforced group showed 100% prosthesis survival and 95% implant survival. On the other hand, the non-reinforced group showed 73.3% prosthesis survival and 81.1% implant survival. Conclusion: Based on the findings of this study, it can be concluded that strengthening the fixed full arch restorations with fiber reinforced frameworks can help overcoming the problem of interim prosthesis fracture during the osseointegration period when used for immediate loading in completely edentulous patients. It can also improve the survival of the immediately loaded implants. (AU)

Objetivo : Avaliar e comparar a sobrevivência de próteses e implantes no caso de próteses totais fixas provisórias reforçadas com estruturas de resina de fibra versus aquelas que não foram reforçadas com nenhuma estrutura no caso de restaurações de arcada completa com carga imediata em pacientes completamente desdentados. Material e Métodos : Trinta pacientes completamente desdentados foram alocados aleatoriamente em dois grupos de braços paralelos. Grupo controle não reforçado, no qual os pacientes receberam prótese total fixa (all-on-four) não reforçada, com carga imediata e grupo reforçado com fibra, no qual os pacientes receberam prótese total fixa (all-on-four), suportada com estrutura de resina reforçada com fibra de vidro. A sobrevivência da prótese e do implante foi avaliada clinicamente após 4 meses de acompanhamento. Resultados : Foi encontrada diferença estatisticamente significante para prótese (p=0,032) e sobrevivência do implante (p=0,031) entre os dois grupos. O grupo reforçado com fibra apresentou 100% de sobrevivência da prótese e 95% de sobrevivência do implante. Por outro lado, o grupo não reforçado apresentou 73,3% de sobrevivência da prótese e 81,1% de sobrevivência do implante. Conclusão: Com base nos achados deste estudo, pode-se concluir que o fortalecimento das restaurações fixas de arcada completa com estruturas reforçadas com fibras pode ajudar a superar o problema da fratura da prótese provisória durante o período de osteointegração quando usada para carga imediata em pacientes completamente desdentados. Também pode melhorar a sobrevivência dos implantes carregados imediatamente (AU).

Cost-Effectiveness of CM-LOC Attachment versus Ball Attachment Retaining Single Implant Mandibular Overdentures.

AIM: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of the novel CM-LOC attachment compared to the gold standard ball attachment in single implant mandibular overdenture. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty-two completely edentulous patients (50 to 69 years old) seeking to improve the retention of their complete mandibular dentures by installing a single implant in the midline of the mandible were recruited for this study. The patients were equally divided into two groups. The first group received a ball attachment abutment over the implant and the second group received CM-LOC attachment abutment. The initial cost and aftercare (maintenance) cost were calculated for each attachment and compared to each other. RESULTS: The initial cost of the CM-LOC attachment was 2.2 times that of the traditional ball attachment. The after-care cost of the CM-LOC attachment was 2.39 times more than the ball attachment. The total cost of the CM-LOC attachment was 2.22 times that of the ball attachment. CONCLUSION: The ball attachment system showed better cost-effectiveness compared to the CM-LOC attachment from the beginning of the study and throughout all the treatment period during the first year.