PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to report on the use of implant-stabilized overdentures in the mandible using the Astra Tech implant system with either ball attachments or magnets as the retentive mechanism. MATERIALS AND METHODS: @entity3572 that used ball attachments on 2 implants were provided for 13 edentulous @entity1 ; 12 edentulous @entity1 were provided with mandibular overdentures with magnet retention, using 2 implants in 10 @entity1 and 3 implants in 2 @entity1 . Once they were comfortable, the @entity1 were placed on annual recall. Any other visits were initiated by the @entity1 . Detailed records were kept for all visits. At the annual recall the following parameters were monitored: plaque levels, @entity33 , marginal bone levels, and the @entity1 ' assessment of the treatment. The @entity1 were followed for 5 years. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the 2 groups for @entity33 and postinsertion maintenance. The magnet group had more abutment surfaces covered with plaque. Statistical analysis of the @entity1 ' subjective assessment of their treatment showed that the magnet group was less comfortable and chewing was less effective. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that both ball attachments and magnets used on isolated Astra Tech implants in the mandible are viable treatment options. Both attachment mechanisms provided @entity1 satisfaction, although the ball attachments were better in this respect than the magnets.

XXXX stabilized by Astra Tech implants with either ball attachments or magnets: 5-year results.

@entity3572 :: ('MESH:D008336', 'Disease') :: ['Mandibular overdentures'] @entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['participants', 'patients', 'patient'] @entity33 :: ('MESH:D052016', 'Disease') :: ['mucosal health']
@entity3572 :: (MESH:D008336,Disease) :: ['Mandibular overdentures']
