Message Boards
Today's Active Topics Today's Active Cases Browse Forum Categories My Recent Activity My Messages Private Groups My Marked Threads My Subscriptions
Today's Active Images Today's Active Polls Most Active Topics Global Townie Map Advanced Message Board Search Message Board Terms of Use

The Benefits of Mini Dental Implants by Eric Hanson, DDS

Start Discussion


As dentists, almost all of us have encountered the patient who comes to our practice to get a new denture because the old one "just doesn't fit." This usually requires a few more questions to get an accurate idea of exactly what the patient means, but what it usually boils down to is this: the lower denture floats around when eating, gets food under it, creates sore spots, and is generally a nuisance.

Upper dentures rarely, in our experience, have these same issues. Lower dentures almost universally do. What do you do when this patient comes in your door? Making a new denture may or may not improve things, and a careful evaluation of the existing denture and the patient's oral condition is warranted as the first step in deciding on a solution.

During this evaluation, you may discover that the patient has worn a denture successfully in the past and has recently lost weight and now says it is "loose." Or you may find out the denture was originally an immediate denture that had never been relined and now, after months or years of osseous resorption, the denture is indeed very loose. In these cases, a new denture alone may improve things. Otherwise, simply making a new denture will result in frustration on your part and the patient's. It is important to take the time to recognize whether making that new denture is the only procedure needed to solve the patient's problem.

One thing is universal, however, and that is this: Securing the denture with dental implants will change your patient's life for the better, and whether or not you currently provide this service in your practice, letting the patient know it is an option is part of your obligation as his or her dentist. There are few procedures we offer that are truly life-changing, but helping a patient return from the land of the dental cripple is one of them.

Providing a service to denture-wearing patients that will eliminate the majority of their problems and allow them to return to a normal diet is a blessing most of them want—especially if it can be done at an affordable fee.

Denture retention options
The dental cripple (as we will refer to this patient) has many options. One option is to do nothing, of course. There are millions, perhaps many hundreds of millions of people worldwide who have few or no teeth and manage to ingest enough calories to survive. Teeth are not necessary for survival. However, in North America, the vast majority of people not only want to survive, but they also want to eat what they consider to be a normal diet and to look good doing it.

The second option is denture adhesive, a multi- billion-dollar industry. Most denture wearers will also tell you they would like to live without the mess and inconvenience of powder or paste and without the embarrassing possibility of coughing out a denture at a family party.

Dental implants are the third option listed here, but really should be the first option presented to patients because almost every edentulous patient can have his or her life improved with them.

Implants can be used to support or retain a denture, or to replace it. Denture replacement is an important option that involves several dental implants per arch and a fixed prosthesis to be fabricated. This should be presented to patients when biological limits allow. Denture replacement is beyond the scope of this article, but several overdenture systems are available that will be outlined below. The advantages and disadvantages of each will be presented, based on our personal observations.

The implant bar-supported denture
Implant bar-supported dentures have been in existence for several decades and have enjoyed a great deal of success. Dental implants are placed and allowed to integrate, then a bar is manufactured by a dental lab, and the denture fabricated afterward. Bars can be made with several attachment types, including the Hader Clip system, Locator-type attachments, and O-ball attachments. The bar can, in many cases, allow the denture to be fully supported, not just retained. Each has its own peculiarities and we won't try to cover all of them in this article.

Advantages
  • Denture is off the tissue so it can cause no irritation
  • Denture is usually completely supported
  • Denture is very stable
  • Patient chewing ability is very good
  • Can often be "upgraded" to a fixed prosthesis without additional implant placement
  • High patient satisfaction
Disadvantages
  • Expense
  • Cleanability
  • Complicated, multistep process to make or remake prosthesis
  • Technique-sensitive lab procedure
  • Technique-sensitive chairside procedure if attempting to reline denture or "pick-up" denture attachments
  • Bone height must be low enough to accommodate implants, bar, attachments, and denture material
  • Bone must be at least 7mm wide for a 3mm diameter implant
Two-Locator or Two O-ball system (Figs. 1 & 2)

Typically, with this system, two root-form implants are placed in the upper or lower canine areas and are allowed to integrate. After integration, the abutments are placed, and the denture attachments "picked up" either chairside or in the lab, or a new denture is fabricated with new attachments.

Advantages
  • Lower expense
  • Cleanability
  • Easier lab procedure
  • Easier chairside procedure for new denture or reline of old denture
  • "Taller" bone is more easily accommodated, especially by the Locator system.
  • Increased stability over no implants
  • Sinus lifts and mandibular bone grafting in the molar/premolar areas not necessary
Disadvantages
  • Two implants are really not all that stable
  • Two implants on the lower means the denture will eventually rock mesial-distally, which defeats the purpose
  • Two implants on the upper means the palate of the denture probably cannot be cut out, which defeats the purpose
  • Rocking denture, caused by distal bone resorption, can result in eventual metal-on-metal wear and prosthetic failure
  • Lowest patient satisfaction of all systems discussed here
  • Highest need to replace liners or O-rings frequently
Four-Locator or Four O-ball system (Figs. 3 & 4)
Rather than placing two implants in the canine areas only, two more are placed distally, provided there is enough bone width to accommodate them. A variation on this is a three- implant system where one is placed at, or close to, the midline with two others in the posterior areas.

Advantages
  • Excellent denture retention
  • Cleanability
  • Upper denture can have palate removed
  • Little to no rocking or other movement of the prosthesis
  • Easier lab and chairside procedure than bar system
  • Can be upgraded to a fixed prosthesis, possibly without additional implant placement
  • High patient satisfaction
  • Replacing liners or O-rings is fairly fast and easy
Disadvantages
  • Patient expense
  • Sinus lift or mandibular bone grafting may be necessary for adequate bone height
  • Large O-balls require shorter bone to accommodate the O-ball and housing
  • Bone grafting may be necessary to accommodate 3mm-plus diameter implants
Mini dental implants (Figs. 5 & 6)
Mini dental implants, those described as being <3mm diameter, are used for overdenture retention. Four to six implants are usually placed and "loaded" six to 12 weeks later. Some practitioners load immediately when minimal torque requirements are met. Our experience is that a six-week waiting period results in a significantly higher success rate than immediate loading. Locators or O-ball systems exist, with the smallest diameter implants being O-ball type.

Advantages
  • Excellent denture retention when at least four are used
  • Cleanability
  • Lowest patient expense (when one-piece O-ball implants are used)
  • Can accommodate the most extensive variation in bone height and width
  • Bone grafting is almost never needed
  • Sinus lift procedures almost never needed
  • Low-trauma surgical procedure is simplest, requiring about an hour per arch.
  • Surgical armamentarium requirement is smallest
  • Chairside and lab prosthetic procedure is simple
  • Easiest procedure to replace a failed implant (if necessary)
  • Shorter healing (integration) period
  • Palate of upper denture may be removed in most cases
  • Lowest chair-time requirement
  • High patient satisfaction
  • Can be used for claspless partials in many cases
  • Replacing O-rings (on O-balls) is fast and easy
  • Fantastic opportunity to obtain experience in implant dentistry
Disadvantages
  • Individual implant failure rate may be higher than for root-form implants
  • Unchangeable abutment type, not as versatile for "upgrade" later
  • Lower denture will rock somewhat if resorbed posterior mandible is present
  • Periodontists and oral surgeons generally don't care for them, believing root-form implants to be superior, and mini implants being merely for use as Temporary Anchoring Devices in orthodontics
Discussion
We have performed all of the above procedures in our practice. We have also restored implants placed by other practitioners. To us, mini dental implants are the most sensible option for almost all patients when considering an overdenture. They require the least amount of trauma, which is advantageous for the fearful patient, and the least expensive, which gives the procedure wide appeal to the average Joe.

As far as we can tell, patient satisfaction with them is highest, especially when taking into consideration the fact that most of the time, a denture is more esthetically pleasing than a fixed bridge. Patients, even those with a badly resorbed mandible, are able to chew well and eat most foods with a bit of practice.

We have also observed that once the attachments are placed in the denture and the prosthesis adjusted, we rarely hear from our overdenture patients who have had minis placed. Mini implant retained overdentures appear to be the most problem-free system we have seen or personally used.

One question that frequently comes up is longevity. The first patient for whom I placed minis more than seven years ago had a severely resorbed mandible with no attached gingiva. Ten-

millimeter mini implants were placed. She did not come in to see us for five years and, as a result of poor oral hygiene, had some inflammation of the mucosa around the implants. I offered to remove the implants to relieve it and also offered to have her see the periodontist for soft tissue grafting. The patient refused both options and the hygienist has been providing implant maintenance every three months, with some improvement in the inflammation. The patient is in very poor health with an undiagnosed wasting disease. The point is, in spite of the imperfect situation, the patient doesn't want to return to life before minis!

Another example: a patient came in about a year ago with four mini implants in the mandible, placed by another practitioner. They were clean, in great shape, and had zero bone loss.

All I did was make a new overdenture, because the patient had paid the highest compliment a denture wearer could pay to the dentist who provided it: by chewing so many meals that the overdenture was worn out! Those implants had been in use for more than 11 years at the time. So much of the longevity of any implant is dependent on factors beyond the practitioner's control, the most important of which is the patient's oral hygiene.

In our practice, we have found Lew mini dental implants—manufactured by Park Dental Research—effective and reliable. The company's philosophy of producing implants at an extremely affordable price meshes very nicely with our practice mission of providing high-quality dental care at affordable fees. But whatever mini dental implant you choose, we believe that this method will help you effectively treat—and forever change the life of—the dental cripple.



Dr. Eric Hanson graduated with honors from the University of Oklahoma College of Dentistry in 2007. Dentistry is a second career for him, which was made possible through the support of his long-suffering wife and three children. He is one of three owners of Smiles Restored, a general practice with emphasis on dental implants and prosthodontics, located in St. George, Utah.


Dentaltown Magazine
April 2024
Dentaltown Magazine April 2024 Read Current Issue Read Archived Issues
Sponsors
Townie Perks
Townie® Poll
Have you ever switched practice management platforms for your practice?
  
Site Menu
Message Boards Magazine Continuing Education Podcasts Blogs Classifieds News Events Townie® Poll Ebooks Townie Choice Awards
Company Info
Contact Us Advertise With Us Howard Farran DDS, MBA Policies and Agreements
Site Help
Sally Gross, Member Services Specialist
Phone: +1-480-445-9710
Email: sally@farranmedia.com
©2024 Dentaltown, a division of Farran Media • All Rights Reserved
9633 S. 48th Street Suite 200 • Phoenix, AZ 85044 • Phone:+1-480-598-0001 • Fax:+1-480-598-3450