RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To compare the changes in implant stability for the nonsubmerged and submerged protocols for a single-implant retained mandibular overdenture using Cendres and Metaux Locator attachment throughout a 24-month follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty edentulous patients who were seeking to install a single implant in the midline of the completely edentulous mandible. At the day of implant installation, patients were randomized into two groups using sealed envelopes: the nonsubmerged and submerged groups. After 3 months of healing period, randomization using sealed envelopes was performed and patients were randomized to receive the Cendres and Metaux Locator attachment. The periotest readings were recorded using the Periotest M device, every 3 months for the first year and annually in the second year. The scope of this clinical trial focused only on results of the Cendres and Metaux attachment. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The Mann-Whitney U-test was used for comparison between study groups for independent samples. Two-sided p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the mean periotest readings of both groups throughout the 24-month follow-up. Both groups showed an improvement in mean periotest readings with the submerged group tending to show greater stability at 6, 12, and 24-month follow-ups. CONCLUSIONS: The nonsubmerged and the submerged healing protocols resulted in reliable periotest readings with the submerged group showing greater improvement than the nonsubmerged, although this improvement is nonsignificant when using the Cendres and Metaux attachment for a single mandibular overdenture.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To compare the changes in implant stability for the nonsubmerged (NS) and submerged (S) protocols for the single implant retained mandibular overdenture using ball attachment throughout a 24-month follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty completely edentulous patients were seeking to improve retention of their lower complete denture by installing a single implant in the midline of the completely edentulous mandible. At the day of implant installation, patients were randomized into 2 groups using sealed envelopes: the nonsubmerged (NS) and submerged (S) group. After a 3-month healing period, all patients were randomized using sealed envelopes into ball attachment and CM-LOC attachment. The Periotest readings (PTV) was recorded using the Periotest M device and was recorded every 3 months for the first year and then annually in the second year. The scope of this clinical trial focused only on results of the ball attachment. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison between study groups for independent samples. Two-sided p values less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the mean change in PTV reading between the NS and S group at the different follow-up intervals. Initially, at the day of pickup (baseline) and 3-month follow-up, the mean PTV reading for the NS was greater than that of the S group (-4.471 ± 1.489, -4.391 ± 1.4727 (p=0.913)), while the S group has shown a greater improvement in PTV than the NS group after 6-month follow-up and continued throughout the 24-month follow-up (-5.730 ± 1.7804, -50855 ± 1.2581 (p=1)). CONCLUSION: Both the nonsubmerged and the submerged healing protocol have shown reliable Periotest readings using ball attachment for a single implant retained overdenture. The submerged group has resulted in a greater improvement in Periotest readings after the 12- and 24-month follow-up period when compared to the nonsubmerged group although this improvement was not statistically significant.
RESUMO
Various invasive and noninvasive methods have been used for measuring primary implant stability. Periotest damping device and resonance frequency analysis with the Osstell device have been classified as noninvasive methods. Primary and secondary implant stability measurements using both devices have given reproducible quantitative values. In this clinical randomized trial, a general correlation was evaluated between the implant stability recorded using both Osstell and Periotest devices on the day of implant installation and 3 months after healing for the submerged and nonsubmerged loading protocols. The present study also investigated whether the difference in gender of the included patients would have an effect on the correlation between the two devices. Eighty completely edentulous patients were recruited, and all patients ranged from 50 to 69 years of age. Overall, 56 men and 24 women were included, with a mean age of 62.5 years for men and 59.6 years for women. A single implant was installed in the midline of the completely edentulous mandible to improve retention of the patient's lower denture. After implant installation, one implant stability quotient (ISQ) value at the buccal surface was recorded, and then the Periotest M device was used to measure the damping effect (Periotest value [PTV]) of the installed implant using the smart peg screwed to the implant. Patients were then randomized into 2 groups using sealed envelopes: the submerged and nonsubmerged groups. For both groups, all ISQ and Periotest readings were recorded in the patient's case report file on the day of implant installation and 3 months after healing. When the ISQ of the buccal surface was correlated to the PTV, there was a moderate negative statistically significant correlation between the 2 readings (correlation coefficient = -.466, P = .000). There tended to be a weak negative correlation between the 2 devices in the male group (correlation coefficient = .395, P = .046) during implant installation, although there tended to be no correlation between the 2 devices in the female group (correlation coefficient = -.367, P = .342). After 3 months of healing, when correlating the readings of the buccal surface of the Osstell with that of the Periotest within each group (submerged and nonsubmerged), there was no statistically significant correlation between the readings within each group (correlation coefficient = -.014, -.430, P = .942, P = .052, respectively). However, there was a strong negative statistically significant correlation between the 2 devices for the female group for both the nonsubmerged group (correlation coefficient = -.823, P = .003) and submerged group (correlation coefficient = -.857, P = .014), whereas there was no statistically significant correlation within the male group for both the nonsubmerged group (correlation coefficient = -.377, P = .123) and submerged group (correlation coefficient = -.022, P = .940). The correlation between the Osstel and Periotest device remains controversial. The present study concluded that there is a significant negative correlation between the 2 devices when recording primary implant stability, although this significance is lost after 3 months of loading when recording secondary implant stability. Gender also affects the implant stability recording, which is mainly due to the difference in bone density between men and women.
