PMID- 21691608 OWN - Quintessenz Verlags-GmbH CI - Copyright Quintessenz Verlags-GmbH OCI - Copyright Quintessenz Verlags-GmbH TA - Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants JT - The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants IS - 1942-4434 (Electronic) IS - 0882-2786 (Print) IP - 3 VI - 26 PST - ppublish DP - 2011 PG - 598-606 LA - en TI - Comparison of Ball and Telescopic Crown Attachments in Implant-Retained Mandibular Overdentures: A 5-year Prospective Study FAU - Krennmair, Gerald AU - Krennmair G FAU - Seemann, Rudolf AU - Seemann R FAU - Weinländer, Michael AU - Weinländer M FAU - Piehslinger, Eva AU - Piehslinger E CN - OT - ball anchors OT - implant-retained prostheses OT - mandibular overdentures OT - prosthodontic maintenance OT - telescopic crowns AB - Purpose: Implant success, peri-implant conditions, and prosthodontic maintenance requirements were evaluated and compared for mandibular overdentures supported by two implants and retained with ball or resilient telescopic crown attachments during a 5-year period. Materials and Methods: Twenty-five patients with an edentulous mandible each received two root-form dental implants in the mandibular interforaminal (canine) region. The type of denture attachment was chosen randomly; 13 patients received ball attachments and 12 patients received resilient telescopic crowns. Implant success and peri-implant conditions (bone resorption, pocket depth, Plaque Index, Gingival Index, Bleeding Index) as well as prosthodontic maintenance and patient satisfaction were evaluated annually during a 5-year follow-up period and compared with respect to the two retention modalities used. Results: Implant success, peri-implant conditions, and subjective patient satisfaction scores did not differ between the two retention modalities used. However, during the 5-year observation period, significantly more postinsertion complications/interventions for maintenance purposes were registered in the ball group (87 interventions, 61.1%) than in the telescopic crown group (53 interventions, 37.9%; P < .01). Differences in prosthodontic maintenance efforts were most significant in the second and third years (P < .05) of the follow-up period but were similar at the end of the study for both anchorage systems. Conclusion: Both ball attachments and resilient telescopic crowns on isolated implants in the atrophic mandible are viable treatment options for implant-supported overdentures. No implant losses, good peri-implant conditions, and general patient satisfaction were noted. Although the frequency of technical complications was initially higher with ball attachments than with resilient telescopic crowns over a 5-year period, similar frequencies of maintenance efforts may be anticipated for both retention modalities. AID - 845745