A 3-Year Follow-up Study of Overdentures

Retained by Mini–Dental Implants

Elena Preoteasa, DMD, PhD1/Marina Imre, DMD, PhD2/Cristina Teodora Preoteasa, DMD3

Purpose: This study evaluated overdentures retained by mini–dental implants (MDIs) as a treatment option
for complete edentulism during a 3-year follow-up period. Materials and Methods: This observational
clinical study included completely edentulous patients who were treated with MDI-retained overdentures.
The MDIs were supplied by the manufacturer. Results: Twenty-three patients received 7 maxillary and 16
mandibular MDI overdentures retained by 110 MDIs. Of the 36 MDIs placed in the maxilla, 8 failed (in two
patients), 2 had compromised survival, 3 displayed satisfactory survival, and 23 were successful. Of the 74
MDIs placed in the mandible, 11 displayed satisfactory survival and 63 were successful. The marginal bone
loss was more pronounced for the MDIs placed mesially (intercalated), in areas of decreased ridge width
and bone density, and with lower values of insertion torque. The overdentures fractured in seven patients; in
4 of them, this corresponded to the implant housing area. Self-reported reasons for patient dissatisfaction
included occasional pain under the overdenture (n = 5) and instability of the maxillary antagonist complete
denture (n = 4). Conclusion: Based on this research, considering its limitations, it is possible to conclude
that survival rates and health status are better for MDI overdentures applied in the mandible than for
those applied in the maxilla. The most severe prosthetic complications encountered were overdenture base
fracture, matrix detachment, and instability of the maxillary antagonist denture. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
2014;29:1170–1176. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3222

Key words: denture, edentulous, mini–dental implants, overdenture

T he mini–dental implant (MDI) overdenture is a rela-

tively recent treatment option for complete eden-
tulism and is indicated especially for patients who
are dissatisfied with their conventional dentures. The
MDIs provide only overdenture retention, not sup-
port, as there is an occlusal space between the im-
plant abutment attachment and the overdenture. MDI
overdentures have several benefits compared to other
treatment alternatives. In contrast to the conventional
complete denture, this type of overdenture requires an
1Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental
Medicine, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy,
Bucharest, Romania.
2Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental
Medicine, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy,
Bucharest, Romania.
3 PhD Student and Assistant Professor, Department of
Scientific Research Methodology, Faculty of Dental Medicine,
“Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy,
Bucharest, Romania.
Correspondence to: Elena Preoteasa, Department of
Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, “Carol Davila”
University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Str. Ionel Perlea nr. 12,
sector 1, 010208 Bucharest, Romania.
Email: dr_elena_preoteasa@yahoo.com
©2014 by Quintessence Publishing Co Inc.
additionally relatively simple, minimally invasive surgi-
cal intervention, but the attachment system and imme-
diate loading of the MDIs ensure increased retention,
stability, and function, with improvements in patient
satisfaction, comfort, and quality of life.1–3 Standard-
diameter implant-supported prosthetic alternatives
have shown success, but these are not viable solutions
for all edentulous patients. The MDI overdenture may
be a more appropriate treatment alternative for the
edentulous patient with compromised health and/or
a restricted buccolingual dimension of bone. In these
cases, MDI placement requires fewer and less invasive
surgical interventions (eg, avoidance of bone grafting
procedures and decreased clinical time required for
implant placement, especially when a minimally in-
vasive flapless technique is used), promoting a lower
risk of developing complications and shortening the
healing period.4,5 Given the demographic changes in
the population, especially the aging trend, there is an
increasing need for relevant treatment for the medi-
cal problems of older patients, complete edentulism
being one of them. The MDI overdenture is one viable
treatment alternative for this condition, which seems
appropriate to this segment of the population, but
scientific evidence regarding clinical outcomes of the
MDI overdenture is relatively limited.6 Therefore, more

1170 Volume 29, Number 5, 2014

© 2014 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.

information is needed to assess the viability and safety
of this treatment concept.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the MDI
overdenture as a treatment option for complete eden-
tulism. Treatment outcomes were considered in three
dimensions: MDI status, overdenture status, and pa-
tient perception and satisfaction. Data were collected
after a 3-year follow-up period.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An observational clinical study was conducted and
implemented. Patients with complete edentulism who
requested treatment at the Department of Prosth-
odontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, “Carol Davila”
University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, be-
tween April and November 2008 were enrolled in the
study. A convenience sample was formed according
to the following eligibility criteria. Completely eden-
tulous patients with conventional complete dentures
who were dissatisfied with this treatment alternative,
or who were untreated but expressed fear and reti-
cence toward conventional dentures, were included.
Excluded were those with severe systemic conditions
(eg, uncontrolled hypertension, diabetes mellitus)
or receiving particular medications (eg, bisphospho-
nates) because of the risk associated with the surgi-
cal procedure of MDI placement and the potential for
these conditions and medications to contribute to a
poor prognosis. The patients were given information
regarding the MDI overdenture, and all chose this
treatment alternative and participation in the study on
a voluntary basis. From each patient, written informed
consent was obtained.
Because the role of the MDIs is to improve reten-
tion of a prosthetic device, the overdenture design
aimed to ensure proper support, retention, and sta-
bility. In this respect, complete coverage of the sup-
port area, including the anatomical and functional
borders, with a complete peripheral seal was chosen.
For maxillary dentures, complete palatal coverage
with a postpalatal seal was used. Registration of the
maxillomandibular relationship aimed to ensure a
correct functional vertical dimension of occlusion in
centric relation. Premature contacts were checked and
eliminated to accomplish the coincidence of centric
relation and centric occlusion and obtain bilateral si-
multaneous stable occlusal contacts in centric occlu-
sion. Principles of lingualized denture occlusion were
used; ie, the maxillary lingual cusps articulated with
the central fossae of the mandibular occlusal surfaces
in centric working and nonworking mandibular posi-
tions. Some of the patients presented with previously
made complete dentures; their quality was analyzed
© 2014 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
Preoteasa et al
and the clinician decided either to keep or replace
them. Aspects related to coverage of the support area,
denture retention and stability, correct registration of
maxillomandibular relationships, type of denture oc-
clusion, the correctness of the arrangement of artificial
teeth, material status, and patient perception regard-
ing the denture were evaluated and considered as fac-
tors in this decision.
The MDIs used were supplied by IMTEC/3M ESPE.
These were available in four lengths (10 mm, 13 mm,
15 mm, and 18 mm) and three diameters (1.8 mm, 2.1
mm, and 2.4 mm) and used collared balls as attach-
ments. The number of MDIs placed and their locations
and dimensions were chosen based on the individual
features of the patient and the judgment of the dentist
but considered as closely as possible the manufactur-
er’s recommendations for this type of implant regard-
ing the minimum number of MDIs that should be
placed (four MDIs in the mandible and six MDIs in the
maxilla). The MDI overdenture was chosen as a treat-
ment option for mandibular or maxillary complete
edentulism. This treatment alternative was indicated
for maxillary edentulism when teeth or fixed prosthet-
ic restorations were present in the anterior mandible
or when patients had a skeletal Class III relationship
with a reverse relation of the edentulous arches.
To ensure a good prognosis, several instructions
were given to the patients. Amoxicillin with clavulanic
acid (Augmentin, SmithKline Beecham) were adminis-
tered to patients for 5 days, starting 2 hours prior to
implant placement. After the surgical intervention,
patients were informed that they would probably
feel some discomfort and pain that would disappear
in a few days; analgesic drugs were recommended if
necessary. Also, they were advised to eat soft foods
of moderate temperature. The importance of ad-
equate hygiene procedures was highlighted. Patients
were taught how to adequately clean the MDIs and
the overdenture. Additionally, they were advised to
use chlorhexidine products to prevent bacterial and
fungal infections. Chlorhexidine digluconate 0.2%
solution was recommended (twice daily oral rinses)
before surgical implant placement and afterward. For
overdenture cleaning, in addition to traditional me-
chanical cleaning, chemical cleaners (tablets) were rec-
ommended. Also, patients with bruxism or xerostomia
were advised not to wear the overdenture overnight at
least two times per week.
The main outcome of this study was the success
of the MDI overdenture as a treatment option for the
completely edentulous patient. The analysis covered
MDI status, overdenture status, and patients’ percep-
tions regarding this treatment alternative. The study
variables, which addressed patient features and treat-
ment specifics, are listed in Table 1.7 Additionally, a
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1171
Preoteasa et al
Table 1  Study Variables
Patient’s general attributes (age, sex)
Data regarding oral and treatment-related features:
• Bone information: bone height,* ridge width,† bone density
according to Misch classification7*
• Treatment variables: Number and locations of MDIs,
length and diameter of MDIs, implant insertion torque
MDI status:
• Implant health, assessed using the previously described
scale
• Peri-implant marginal bone loss‡: registered as the
maximum number of threads devoid of bone on the mesial
and distal implant sides
• Implant mobility§
• Self-reported peri-implant bleeding: spontaneous or during
brushing
• Radiolucency at the apical part of the implant‡
Overdenture status:
• Presence of any technical complication that required
repair or maintenance: matrix detachment, overdenture
fracture or relining
Patient perceptions regarding MDI overdenture:
• Self-reported reasons for satisfaction/dissatisfaction with
this treatment
• Frequency of overdenture wearing
• Ease of use of MDI overdenture: overdenture placement
(insertion), removal, and cleaning
*Assessedwith computed tomography; †assessed with a clinical
bone compass; ‡assessed with panoramic radiography;
§assessed by clinical evaluation.
health scale for the MDI, derived from that proposed
by the International Congress of Oral Implantology in
Pisa, Italy, at the 2007 Consensus Conference8 and tak-
ing into consideration the Albrektsson et al criteria for
implant success,9 was used as follows:
• Failure: MDIs that were lost or removed for any rea-
son, MDIs that fractured or presented with mobility,
marginal bone loss exceeding half of the implant
body length, or pain during function
• Compromised survival: MDIs still present in the
mouth, without an indication to be removed, but
with either minimal clinical mobility, severe mar-
ginal bone loss (less than half of the implant body
length), or sensitivity during function
• Satisfactory survival: MDIs displaying no clinical
mobility or sensitivity during function, with moder-
ate bone loss (more than two threads, but less than
half of the implant body length)
• Success: MDIs without clinical mobility or sensitivity
during function and marginal bone loss of less than
two threads
Data collection was conducted before and dur-
ing surgical placement of the MDIs and after surgery;
follow-up appointments were attended weekly during
1172 Volume 29, Number 5, 2014
© 2014 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
Table 2  Health Status of MDIs Placed
Location
MDI health status Maxilla Mandible
Failed 8 0
Compromised survival 2 0
Satisfactory survival 3 11
Success 23 63
the first month postsurgery, at 3 and 6 months, and at
1, 2, and 3 years postsurgery. Clinical and radiograph-
ic (panoramic radiography, computed tomography)
methods, together with data obtained through discus-
sions with the patient during recall visits, were used for
evaluations. Panoramic radiographs were indicated at
6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years.
Statistical analysis was performed with the Statisti-
cal Package for the Social Sciences (version 13.0, SPSS
Inc). In addition to descriptive statistics, the chi-square
and Mann-Whitney tests were used for comparison be-
tween groups.
RESULTS
Sample Characteristics
Of the 24 completely edentulous patients initially en-
rolled, 1 was lost during follow-up. Of the remaining 23
patients, 10 were men and 13 were women; the mean
age was 62 years (range, 52 to 76 years). The subjects
were treated with 7 maxillary and 16 mandibular MDI
overdentures. A total of 110 MDIs were placed (36 in
the maxilla and 74 in the mandible). Five or six MDIs
were placed in the maxilla and four to six MDIs were
placed in the mandible.
MDI Status
Of the 110 MDIs placed, 8 failed, for a survival rate
of 92.7%. All MDIs that failed had been placed in the
maxilla. Also, all eight failed MDIs had been placed in
two female patients and failed within 1 to 2 years af-
ter their insertion. In one patient, all five MDIs that had
been placed failed, two as a result of MDI fracture. In
the other patient, three of five MDIs placed were lost as
a result of progressive marginal bone loss. The health
status of the MDIs, according to the scale presented,
can be summarized as follows: in addition to the 8
failed MDIs, 2 had compromised survival, 14 showed
satisfactory survival, and 86 were considered success-
ful. Differences in the health status of maxillary and
mandibular MDIs are summarized in Table 2.
The other complications that occurred within
the 102 MDIs still present at the 3-year follow-up
 Preoteasa et al

examination are listed in Table 3. Almost half of the Table 3  Complications of MDIs Placed
MDIs registered marginal bone loss > 1 thread and
peri-implant bleeding, which appeared most frequent- Total Maxillary Mandibular
Complication (n = 102) (n = 28) (n = 74)
ly during brushing. Some of the complications had a
Marginal bone loss
different distribution depending on location (eg, spon- 1–2 threads 29 6 23
taneous peri-implant bleeding was reported only for 2–3 threads 11 4 7
MDIs placed in the mandible). > 3 threads 5 1 4
Marginal bone loss was more severe in women, in Total 45 11 34
patients with a decreased ridge width, in sites with Apical radiolucency 22 6 16
decreased bone density, around implants with lower Mobility 2 2 0
insertion torque values, and in MDIs placed toward the Bleeding
midline (mesial/intercalated). MDIs with marginal bone During brushing 36 13 23
loss of more than one implant thread more frequently Spontaneous 12 0 12
presented with radiolucent lesions at the apical part of Total 48 13 35
the implant and were more frequently associated with
spontaneous peri-implant bleeding (Table 4).
Table 4  Relationships between Patient-
Overdenture Status and Implant-Related Factors and
During the 3-year follow-up period, overdenture frac- Peri-implant Marginal Bone Loss
tures occurred in seven patients. In the mandible, over-
Peri-implant marginal
denture fracture sites corresponded more frequently to bone loss
the implant housing area (n = 4), but fractures also oc- < 1 implant > 1 implant
curred in regions between implants (n = 2). In the max- Characteristic thread thread Significance
illa, only one overdenture fractured in the area between Patient sex P = .001*
implants. Overdenture relining was done in five cases. Female 23 MDIs 33 MDIs
Two of these were the patients with implant failures. Male 34 MDIs 12 MDIs
During the 3-year period, detachment of the cor- Mean patient age (y) 62.04 60.27 NS†
responding matrices from the overdenture base oc- Mean bone height (mm) 17.23 18.44 NS†
curred in eight MDIs; clinical prosthetic procedures Mean ridge width (mm) 6.23 5.64 P = .013†
were required to rectify these problems. Five of these Bone density 7 P = .007*
matrices corresponded to mesial MDIs and three to D2 28 MDIs 9 MDIs
distal MDIs. D3 20 MDIs 28 MDIs
D4 9 MDIs 8 MDIs
Patient Perceptions and Satisfaction Implant length NS*
With respect to patients’ perceptions of MDI overden- 10 mm 11 MDIs 15 MDIs
13 mm 46 MDIs 30 MDIs
ture treatment during the 3-year follow-up period, they
were generally satisfied with the esthetics, retention, Implant diameter –
1.8 mm 0 MDIs 3 MDIs
and functionality (mastication, phonation). Patients’ 2.10 mm 26 MDIs 14 MDIs
complaints were related mainly to occasional pain that 2.40 mm 31 MDIs 28 MDIs
was described as appearing under the overdentures or Mean implant torque 32.11 27.67 P = .003†
related to soft tissue trauma (n = 5). Some patients per- (Ncm)
ceived instability of the maxillary antagonist denture Implant location P = .005*
(n = 4 patients with mandibular MDI overdentures), Mesial (intercalated) 26 MDIs 33 MDIs
which was related to difficulties during mastication. Distal 31 MDIs 12 MDIs
Treatment satisfaction was linked to the frequency of Apical radiolucency P < .001*
overdenture wearing. Twenty patients declared that Absent 52 MDIs 28 MDIs
they wore the overdenture continuously, whereas only Present 5 MDIs 17 MDIs
three stated that they did not wear it while sleeping. Peri-implant bleeding P = .014*
However, the latter patients were not the patients ad- Absent 33 MDIs 21 MDIs
Present during 22 MDIs 14 MDIs
vised to avoid wearing the overdenture during sleep brushing
(ie, those with bruxism or xerostomia). The specific Present 2 MDIs 10 MDIs
recommendation regarding nighttime wearing of the spontaneously
overdentures was generally not followed, with the pa- *Chi-square test; †Mann-Whitney test. NS = not statistically
tients admitting that they followed this advice only for significant; – = assumptions not met to apply the
a short time. corresponding statistical test.

The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1173

© 2014 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
Preoteasa et al
Regarding the ease of use of MDI overdentures,
most patients perceived overdenture insertion as
quite easy. Only six patients reported difficulties with
this procedure. Regarding overdenture removal, most
patients (n = 16) said they perceived it as problematic.
Thus, in general, overdenture removal was perceived
as being more difficult than overdenture insertion.
All patients declared that they perceived cleaning
of the overdenture as easy. All of them stated that they
cleaned the prosthetic device daily, and some patients
(n = 6) reported cleaning their overdenture twice a day.
DISCUSSION
Nowadays the MDI overdenture is more frequently
seen as an optimal treatment option for completely
edentulous patients, as it is extremely well suited to
this population of often elderly persons. These per-
sons may have multiple general diseases that limit
the ability to undergo complex surgical interventions,
they may be less willing to undergo extensive medi-
cal procedures, and they may have limited financial
resources. A major advantage of the MDI overdenture
is related to the possibility of immediate loading of the
MDIs, which gives maximum satisfaction to the patient
because function is rapidly regained (ability to chew,
speak, and interact socially).
Regarding the MDIs that are used to stabilize the
dentures, this study presented a survival rate of 92.7%
within a 3-year follow-up period. The published evi-
dence comprises data similar to this, generally pre-
senting MDI survival rates above 90%.5 Elsyad et al
indicated a survival rate of 96% for MDIs placed in the
mandible after a 3-year follow-up period,10 and Griffitts
et al obtained a survival rate of 97.4% for MDIs placed
in the mandible after 13 months.11 In the current study,
MDIs placed in the maxilla presented a lower survival
rate than those placed in the mandible. These results
are concordant with other studies reported in the sci-
entific literature, such as that conducted by Shatkin et
al, who achieved survival rates of 95.1% for mandibular
MDIs and 83.2% for maxillary MDIs within a 2.9-year
follow-up period.12 They also reported that the MDI
survival rate depended on implant location: posterior
maxillary MDIs had a greater chance of being lost than
those placed in the anterior maxilla (posterior 88.9%,
anterior 93.3%), whereas similar survival rates were
seen for anterior and posterior MDIs placed in the man-
dible (posterior 96.5%, anterior 96%). This differing be-
havior of MDIs placed in the maxilla and mandible is
likely a consequence of differences in bone features
(eg, bone density). This behavior of MDIs may be simi-
lar to that observed with conventional dental implants,
which also have a higher failure rate in the maxilla.13
1174 Volume 29, Number 5, 2014
© 2014 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
In the current study, MDI failures occurred only in
the maxilla in two female patients. One of these lost
all five MDIs placed. She had reduced bone density
(D3 and D4 Misch classification) and hypodivergent
facial pattern and had become edentulous only re-
cently (the remaining teeth were the maxillary right
canine and premolars). After overdenture placement,
the patient complained about phonation deficiencies
and perceived some muscular tension and discom-
fort. Adjustments were made to the overdentures and
a gradual improvement was noticed that led to a sat-
isfying outcome after 3 weeks. Positive results were
experienced for approximately 1 year. Three months
after the 1-year appointment, the patient came to the
dentist citing some discomfort related to overden-
ture wearing; denture stomatitis was noted at that
time. Treatment was recommended for this condition,
but the patient did not attend follow-up medical ap-
pointments. Five months later, she came to the office
claiming that all her MDIs had been progressively lost.
Radiographic exams showed that two of the MDIs had
fractured. The patient stated that she desired only
some overdenture adjustments because she was sus-
pected to have other medical problems (osteoporosis
and hepatic neoplasm). During this visit, the denture
was relined, and an appointment was made to remove
the remaining fractured implants, but the patient
missed this appointment. The other patient lost three
of her five MDIs. She was a highly stressed person
with an unbalanced, mainly vegan, diet that included
many hard foods. In her case, MDI failure was prob-
ably related to a slightly increased vertical dimension
of occlusion, which had been chosen because of the
decreased available vertical prosthetic space. When
the problems began to be noticed, adjustments were
made; nevertheless, three implants were lost. After
this, two new MDIs were placed, and a positive status
of the two surviving MDIs at the 3-year follow-up was
noted.
During this study, two MDIs failed because of frac-
tures, both in the apical part of the implant. The au-
thors note that this behavior is similar to that of teeth
and different from that of conventional implants. Con-
ventional dental implants typically present problems
at the connection between the abutment and endos-
seous implant, most often loosening of the abutment
screw or fracture of the implant in this location. Shatkin
et al also identified MDI fracture as a complication of
MDI overdentures, but they reported that it occurred
infrequently (0.8%) during MDI placement.12 Regard-
ing implant fractures, some aspects need to be clari-
fied. Endosseous dental implants seem to fracture less
frequently when supporting overdentures, compared
to fixed prosthetic devices, as supported by some
clinical evidence.14 In contrast, however, according

to Sánchez-Pérez et al15 and Allum et al,16 narrow im-
plants (defined, respectively, as narrower than 4 mm
and 3 mm) have an increased risk of fracture. Taking
these aspects together, studies should be implement-
ed to identify the frequency and types of implant frac-
tures associated with MDI overdentures.
Peri-implant marginal bone loss and matrix detach-
ment were more frequent for the implants located
toward the midline (intercalated), probably indicat-
ing that mesially placed implants may be subjected to
higher loads than distal implants. The higher strain on
mesial MDIs may be explained by their increased role
in indirect retention in counteracting tipping forces
and overdenture dislodgment during mastication.
Also, the presence of MDIs may induce movements
of the occlusal and masticatory field anteriorly, which
could explain, in the case of mandibular MDI overden-
tures, the relatively quick appearance of instability of
the antagonistic maxillary complete denture.
The results of this study indicate that marginal bone
loss around MDIs is not influenced by the implant di-
ameter, a finding supported by other studies.17 When
a patient’s general health status may prevent com-
plex surgical interventions, small-diameter implants
may be considered as the best options for mandibular
edentulous patients, who often present a decreased
ridge width. However, the authors emphasize that the
current results indicate that a decreased ridge width
appears to have a tendency to a more pronounced
peri-implant marginal bone loss. Also, according to
the current results, although self-reported sponta-
neous peri-implant bleeding was noted rarely, when
present it may indicate more severe MDI marginal
bone loss.
Several overdenture deficiencies were noted dur-
ing the 3-year follow-up period. Overdenture frac-
tures were found with a moderate frequency (seven
overdentures fractured) and can be explained by the
increased security in chewing brought about by the
overdenture’s increased balance and retention, which
favored an increase in muscular activity. The most
common location for overdenture base fractures was
in the housing area; this is probably related to the
relatively thin overdenture base in that region. Over-
denture relining is a complication that has been iden-
tified in several studies concerning the topic of MDI or
conventional implant overdentures and conventional
dentures.18,19
Patients were generally satisfied with their MDI
overdentures. This might be related to the sample
characteristics and study inclusion criteria, ie, volun-
teers who were dissatisfied with their complete den-
tures or who expressed fear and reticence regarding
conventional dentures, with limited financial means,
© 2014 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
Preoteasa et al
who were offered access to this treatment option at a
lower cost. Even so, their positive perceptions about
this treatment alternative remained constant over
time, probably related to the increased retention and
comfort associated with the prosthetic device.
The main limitation of this study is its relative small
sample, but it provides data to help dentists to under-
stand the behavior of MDI overdentures and offers hy-
potheses that might be tested in larger, randomized
controlled clinical trials.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on this research and taking its limitations into
consideration, the following conclusions regarding
mini–dental implant (MDI) overdenture treatment can
be drawn.
• Survival rates and health status were better for MDIs
placed in the mandible than for those placed in the
maxilla, indicating that the MDI overdenture may
be a more suitable treatment option for mandibular
complete edentulism.
• Overdenture fracture is a relatively frequent compli-
cation that occurred most often in the mandible in
sites corresponding to implant housing areas. Con-
sequently, it may be recommended that dentists
ensure proper thickness of the overdenture base or
reinforce it to prevent this.
• In completely edentulous patients, applying an MDI
overdenture in the mandible may have a negative
impact on the stability of a conventional maxillary
denture, and it may be necessary to manage this
side effect (eg, to apply a maxillary MDI overden-
ture) to ensure patient satisfaction.
The MDI overdenture, like any other medical treat-
ment, has potential complications. In general, these
can be addressed through interventions that have
acceptable moderate biologic, financial, and clinical
costs (eg, prosthetic interventions such as adjustment
or relining of the overdenture’s acrylic base, repairing
the fractured overdenture, replacement or change of
the matrices of the ball attachments, or insertion of a
new MDI in case of MDI failure).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank IMTEC, currently part of 3M ESPE, for their
support of this research by providing some of the materials and
mini–dental implants. The authors reported no conflicts of inter-
est related to this study.
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1175
Preoteasa et al
REFERENCES
1. Bulard RA, Vance JB. Multi-clinic evaluation using mini-dental im-
plants for long-term denture stabilization: A preliminary biometric
evaluation. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2005;26:892–897.
2. Thomason JM, Kelly SA, Bendkowski A, Ellis JS. Two implant–re-
tained overdentures—A review of the literature supporting the
McGill and York consensus statements. J Dent 2012;40:22–34.
3. Preoteasa E, Meleşcanu-Imre M, Preoteasa CT, Marin M, Lerner H.
Aspects of oral morphology as decision factors in mini-implant sup-
ported overdenture. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2010;51:309–314.
4. Christensen GJ. The increased use of small-diameter implants. J Am
Dent Assoc 2009;140:709–712.
5. Sohrabi K, Mushantat A, Esfandiari S, Feine J. How successful are
small-diameter implants? A literature review. Clin Oral Implants Res
2012;23:515–525.
6. Gallucci GO, Morton D, Weber HP. Loading protocols for dental
implants in edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
2009;24:132–146.
7. Misch CE. Bone density: A key determinant for clinical success. In:
Misch CE. Dental Implant Prosthetics. St Louis: Mosby, 2005:130–141.
8. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, et al. Implant success, survival, and
failure: The International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI)
Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent 2008;17:5–15.
9. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term
efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed
criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:11–25.
10. Elsyad MA, Gebreel AA, Fouad MM, Elshoukouki AH. The clinical
and radiographic outcome of immediately loaded mini implants
supporting a mandibular overdenture. A 3-year prospective study.
J Oral Rehabil 2011;38:827–834.
1176 Volume 29, Number 5, 2014
© 2014 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
11. Griffitts TM, Collins CP, Collins PC. Mini dental implants: An adjunct
for retention, stability, and comfort for the edentulous patient. Oral
Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;100:e81–84.
12. Shatkin TE, Shatkin S, Oppenheimer BD, Oppenheimer AJ. Mini
dental implants for long-term fixed and removable prosthetics:
A retrospective analysis of 2514 implants placed over a five-year
period. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2007;28:92–99.
13. Pikner SS, Gröndahl K, Jemt T, Friberg B. Marginal bone loss at im-
plants: A retrospective, long-term follow-up of turned Brånemark
System implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009;11:11–23.
14. Gargallo Albiol J, Satorres-Nieto M, Puyuelo Capablo JL, Sánchez
Garcés MA, Pi Urgell J, Gay Escoda C. Endosseous dental implant
fractures: An analysis of 21 cases. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal
2008;13:e124–128.
15. Sánchez-Pérez A, Moya-Villaescusa MJ, Jornet-Garcia A, Gomez S.
Etiology, risk factors and management of implant fractures. Med
Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010;15:e504–508.
16. Allum SR, Tomlinson RA, Joshi R. The impact of loads on standard
diameter, small diameter and mini implants: A comparative labora-
tory study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:553–559.
17. Pommer B, Frantal S, Willer J, Posch M, Watzek G, Tepper G. Impact
of dental implant length on early failure rates: A meta-analysis of
observational studies. J Clin Periodontol 2011;38:856–863.
18. Bortolini S, Natali A, Franchi M, Coggiola A, Consolo U. Implant-
retained removable partial dentures: An 8-year retrospective study.
J Prosthodont 2011;20:168–172.
19. MacEntee MI, Walton JN, Glick N. A clinical trial of patient satisfac-
tion and prosthodontic needs with ball and bar attachments for
implant-retained complete overdentures: Three-year results.
J Prosthet Dent 2005;93:28–37.