CAMLOG Summary Edentulous patients

Introduction There are several implant-supported rehabilitation options for edentulism of the maxilla and mandible. Implant-sup- ported overdentures with four interforaminal implants are normally recommended as the standard treatment of the mandible. The situation differs in the maxilla because of poor bone quality, i.e., additional implants are often placed in the lateral area for better stability. When treating eden- tulous patients with fixed restorations, a higher number of implants are used (six in the mandible, seven in the maxilla). The aim of this document is to provide an overview of cur- rent studies Selected studies Overdentures on CAMLOG ® implants – scientifically well documented: The treatment of edentulous patients with overdentures on CAMLOG ® implants has scientifically been well documented. Various institutions have carried out prospective and retrospective clinical studies on im- plant-supported prostheses in the maxilla and mandible with different implant numbers (Table1). Various bar construc- tions and retention methods have been studied and com- pared (Table2). Table 3 provides an overview of the studies. Excellent implant survival rates and high patient sa- tisfaction: In all studies with CAMLOG ® implants, excel- lent implant survival rates and treatment successes have been documented [1-13]. Implant survival rates and treat- ment successes in the studies were between 98 and 100% over a period of up to five years. These results correspond to the results of comparable studies with other established implant systems [14]. Ball abutment vs. telescopic crown – a five-year pro- spective study: In their study, Krennmair et al. (2011) examined patients with overdentures over a period of five years [1], that were retained in the atrophied mandible with ball or telescopic crown attachments [1]. Twenty-five pa- tients with edentulous mandibles were each treated with two CAMLOG ® implants in the interforaminal region of the cuspids. Either a ball abutment or elastic telescopic crowns were used, randomly. The success of the implantation, condition of the peri-implant tissue, possible necessary interventions to maintain the prosthetic and patient satisfaction were evaluated. The study showed that more interventions were required during the five years for ball abutments; technical complications with the ball abutments (61% of cases) occurred much more frequently than with the telescopic crowns (38%, p<0.01). Differences were SUMMARY: Several studies document the excellent treatment successes with CAMLOG ® implants; studies up to 5 years of different retention methods and implant numbers. Edentulous patients – an overview of different forms of treatment on CAMLOG ® implants Science / Clinical Research Peters F, Wanner H. Zahnlose Patienten – ein Überblick über verschiedene Versorgungsformen auf CAMLOG ® Implantaten. Logo 2011;24:8-10 Number of implants used 2 4 >4 Mandible ✓ ✓ ✓ Maxilla ✓ ✓ Table1: Overview of the studies on treatment forms on CAMLOG ® implants in the maxilla and mandible of edentu- lous patients: number of implants used Table2: Overview of the studies on treatment forms on CAMLOG ® implants in the maxilla and mandi- ble of edentulous patients: retention technique Retention technique Milled bar Round bar Ball abut- ment Telescopic crown Galvano bar Horizontally screwed fixation Mandible ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Maxilla ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓