CAMLOG Summary Edentulous patients

Edentulous patients – an overview of different forms of treatment on CAMLOG ® implants Science / Clinical Research Prospective and retrospective studies Authors Maxilla / mandible Duration / follow-up Retention Treatment on N implants Implant survival rate Retrospective / prospective Krennmair et al. 2011 [1] Mandible 5 years Ball abutment, telescopic crown 2 100% prospective Krennmair et al. 2011 [5] Mandible 3 years Milled bar, telescopic crown 4 100% prospective Xiang et al. 2011, 2010 [9, 10] Maxilla Mandible 5 years Horizontally screwed fixation 6 to 9 5 to 8 99% retrospective Weinländer et al. 2010 [6] Mandible 5 years Milled bar, round bar 4 2 or 4 100% prospective Krennmair et al. 2008 [12,13] Maxilla 5 years Milled bar (anterior vs. lateral region) 4 6 to 8 98% retrospective Krennmair et al. 2008 [7] Mandible 5 years Milled bar, round bar 4 100% prospective Karabuda et al. 2008 [4] Maxilla Mandible 23 months Ball abutment, round bar 2 to 4 99% no statements Krennmair et al. 2007 [8] Mandible 59 months Milled bar 4 99% retrospective Nelson et al. 2006 [11] Maxilla Mandible 35 months Galvano bar 5 to 6 4 99% retrospective Krennmair et al. 2006 [2, 3] Mandible 3 years Ball abutment, telescopic crown 2 100% prospective Table3: Prospective and retrospective studies on treatment forms on CAMLOG ® implants: retention technique, number of implants, study duration and jaw examined (in chronological order). Peters F, Wanner H. Zahnlose Patienten – ein Überblick über verschiedene Versorgungsformen auf CAMLOG ® Implantaten. Logo 2011;24:8-10 particularly evident during the first three years (p<0.05) [1-3]. The condition of the peri-implant tissue and treatment satisfaction did not differ significantly. Implant treatment success in both groups was 100% during five years [1] Karabuda et al. (2008) found similar results. They compared overdentures with bar and ball abutment on two to four im- plants in 26 patients [4]. The study encompassed various im- plant systems including CAMLOG ® implants. The treatment success with both techniques was also comparable in this study. Milled bars vs. telescopic crown on four implants – three years of data: A very high rate of implant treatment successes (100% over 3 years) were also observed in a ran- domized prospective study with 51 edentulous patients [5]. The patients have received a mandibular overdenture on four CAMLOG ® implants retained with milled bars or tele- scopic crowns. The study showed that peri-implant condi- tions were stable for both retention techniques. Prosthetic follow-ups were also comparable in both groups. Indeed, more plaque and tartar was observed with the bar con- structions. However, the prosthetic treatment showed slight benefits with this technique. The authors conclu- ded, that both retention methods are successful and that the clinician should choose the technique he/she is most familiar with [5]. Different retention options on two or four im- plants: Over a period of five years, Weinländer et al. (2010) also observed implant survival rates of 100% [6]. The study included 76 patients with edentulous man- dibles. They received an overdenture on either two or four