Share Page:

Volume 34 , Issue 4
July/August 2019

Pages 936–946

Stud vs Bar Attachments for Maxillary Four-Implant–Supported Overdentures: 3- to 9-year Results from a Retrospective Study

Meifei Lian, DDS/Kai Zhao, DDS/Feng Wang, DDS, MS/Wei Huang, DDS, MS/Xiuyin Zhang, DDS, MD, PhD/Yiqun Wu, DDS, MD, PhD

PMID: 30934037
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.7224

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of four-implant–supported overdentures retained by stud or bar attachments for patients with an edentulous maxilla. Materials and Methods: From January 2008 to December 2014, patients with maxillary edentulism were enrolled in this retrospective study. The insertion of four maxillary dental implants was followed by restoration with either stud-retained or bar-retained overdentures. The characteristics of the subjects and implants were recorded. Implant survival rates, marginal bone loss, peri-implant clinical parameters, prosthetic maintenance efforts, and patient satisfaction score were evaluated at the last follow-up time. The data were statistically analyzed, and the level of significance was set at α = .05. Results: A total of 132 implants were placed in 33 patients, of whom 18 were restored with four-implant–supported overdentures retained by stud attachments, and the other 15 with four-implant– supported overdentures retained by bar attachments. Thirty-one patients and 124 implants were available for the entire follow-up. During a mean follow-up period of 77 months (range: 36 to 111 months), five among 72 implants failed for three patients in the stud-retained group and two among 60 implants failed for two patients in the bar-retained group, resulting in estimated cumulative implant survival rates of 81.4% and 86.2% for the stud-retained group and the bar-retained group, respectively. Except for the modified Plaque Index (P = .035), no significant differences were indicated between the two attachment groups in terms of implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, peri-implant clinical parameters, or prosthetic maintenance treatment. Peri-/inter-implant gingival hyperplasia occurred only with implants under bar attachments. Patients in both groups reported a high degree of satisfaction. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, no significant differences were indicated between the clinical outcomes of maxillary four-implant–supported overdentures with either stud or bar attachments, although a higher modified Plaque Index was observed for the bar-retained group. Furthermore, prostheses with stud attachments were advantageous for their convenient cleaning and repair.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article


Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.


© 2020 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Author Guidelines
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us