Comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-retained overdentures and conventional dentures among middle-aged edentulous patients: Satisfaction and functional assessment : Manal A. Awad, James P. Lund, Eric Dufresne, Jocelyne S. Feine. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:117-122

Purpose

The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the relative efficacy of mandibular overdentures retained by only two implants and a bar attachment with conventional dentures.

Materials and methods

Edentulous adults, aged 35 to 65 years, were randomly assigned to two groups that received either a mandibular conventional denture (n = 48) or an overdenture supported by two endosseous implants with a connecting bar (n = 54). All subjects rated their general satisfaction and other features of their original dentures and their new prostheses (comfort, stability, ability to chew, speech, esthetics, and cleaning ability) on 100-mm visual analogue scales prior to treatment and 2 months postdelivery. Oral health-related quality of life was also evaluated pre- and posttreatment.

Results

Multiple regression analysis revealed that the mean general satisfaction was significantly higher in the overdenture group than in the conventional denture group (P=.0001). Age, gender, marital status, and income were not significantly associated with ratings of general satisfaction. Furthermore, the implant group gave significantly higher ratings on three additional measures of the prostheses (comfort, stability, and ease of chewing; P<.05).

Conclusion

A mandibular two-implant overdenture opposed by a maxillary conventional denture is a more satisfactory treatment than conventional dentures for edentulous middle-aged adults.     

Patient satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures 6 months after delivery

PURPOSE: This study examined patient satisfaction with conventional complete dentures and mandibular implant overdentures opposing conventional maxillary dentures 6 months after delivery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty edentulous subjects (aged 65 to 75 years) were randomly assigned to either a mandibular conventional denture or an overdenture supported by two implants with ball-shaped retentive anchors. Patients rated their general satisfaction and other features of their prostheses, together with their ability to eat certain food items, on 100-mm visual analogue scales before assignment, and after 2 and 6 months. RESULTS: Both treatment groups reported greater satisfaction with their new prostheses at 6 months. General satisfaction ratings were higher in the implant group than in the conventional denture group by approximately 36% (mean difference 22.3 mm). The implant group also rated comfort (mean difference 22.4 mm), stability (mean difference 28.5 mm), and ability to chew (mean difference 17.3 mm) significantly higher. Significantly higher scores were also given by the implant group for their ability to chew certain hard foods. A trend for an increase in the differences between the groups, in favor of the implant group, was observed between the 2- and 6-month recalls, although the increase was only significant for ease of cleaning. The primary influence on general satisfaction 6 months after the delivery of the prostheses was the provision of the two-implant overdenture. CONCLUSION: Edentulous seniors who received mandibular implant overdentures opposing a conventional denture rated their general satisfaction approximately 36% higher than did a comparable group provided with new conventional dentures.     

Oral health status and treatment satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures: a randomized clinical trial in a senior population

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare elderly patients' satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life with mandibular two-implant overdentures and conventional dentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty edentulous subjects aged 65 to 75 years were randomly assigned to two groups treated with maxillary conventional dentures and either a mandibular conventional denture (n = 30) or an overdenture supported by two implants with ball retainers (n = 30). Subjects rated their general satisfaction, as well as other features of their dentures (comfort, stability, ability to chew, speech, esthetics, and cleaning ability), prior to treatment and 2 months postdelivery. Changes in ratings on the original Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) and its short form (OHIP-EDENT) were also used as indicators of oral health-related quality of life. RESULTS: The primary outcome of this study, ratings of general satisfaction 2 months postdelivery, was significantly better in the group treated with mandibular two-implant overdentures (P = .001). In addition, the implant group gave significantly higher ratings on comfort, stability, and ability to chew. Furthermore, using OHIP-EDENT, subjects who received mandibular two-implant overdentures had significantly fewer oral health-related quality of life problems than did the conventional group. CONCLUSION: These short-term results suggest that mandibular two-implant overdentures combined with maxillary conventional dentures provide better function and oral health-related quality of life than conventional dentures.     

Patient satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures 6 months after delivery

Purpose

This study examined patient satisfaction with conventional complete dentures and mandibular implant overdentures opposing conventional maxillary dentures 6 months after delivery.

Materials and Methods

Sixty edentulous subjects (aged 65 to 75 years) were randomly assigned to either a mandibular conventional denture or an overdenture supported by two implants with ball-shaped retentive anchors. Patients rated their general satisfaction and other features of their prostheses, together with their ability to eat certain food items, on 100-mm visual analogue scales before assignment, and after 2 and 6 months.

Results

Both treatment groups reported greater satisfaction with their new prostheses at 6 months. General satisfaction ratings were higher in the implant group than in the conventional denture group by approximately 36% (mean difference 22.3 mm). The implant group also rated comfort (mean difference 22.4 mm), stability (mean difference 28.5 mm), and ability to chew (mean difference 17.3 mm) significantly higher. Significantly higher scores were also given by the implant group for their ability to chew certain hard foods. A trend for an increase in the differences between the groups, in favor of the implant group, was observed between the 2- and 6-month recalls, although the increase was only significant for ease of cleaning. The primary influence on general satisfaction 6 months after the delivery of the prostheses was the provision of the two-implant overdenture.

Conclusion

Edentulous seniors who received mandibular implant overdentures opposing a conventional denture rated their general satisfaction approximately 36% higher than did a comparable group provided with new conventional dentures.     

The effectiveness of 2‐implant overdentures – a pragmatic international multicentre study

Summary The purpose of this multicentre observational study was to determine patient satisfaction with either conventional dentures or mandibular 2‐implant overdentures in a ‘real world’ setting. Two hundred and three edentulous patients (mean age 68·8 ± 10·4 years) were recruited at eight centres located in North America, South America and Europe. The patients were provided with new mandibular conventional dentures or implant overdentures supported by two implants and ball attachments. At baseline and at 6 months post‐treatment, they rated their satisfaction with their mandibular prostheses on 100‐mm visual analogue scale questionnaires. One hundred and two (50·2%) participants had valid baseline and 6‐month satisfaction data. Although both groups reported improvements, the implant overdenture group reported significantly higher ratings of overall satisfaction, comfort, stability, ability to speak and ability to chew. These results suggest that edentulous patients who choose mandibular implant overdentures have significantly greater improvements in satisfaction, despite their relatively higher cost, than those who choose new conventional dentures.     

Relationship between prosthodontic evaluation and patient ratings of mandibular conventional and implant prostheses

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare clinicians' ratings of the state of oral tissues and their satisfaction with treatment to edentulous patients' ratings of treatment success after provision of mandibular implant overdentures or conventional dentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty subjects randomly received either mandibular overdentures retained by two implants (n = 30) or new conventional mandibular complete dentures (n = 30). All were given new conventional maxillary dentures. Baseline measures included clinical evaluation of the oral soft and hard tissues. Patients rated their general satisfaction before and after treatment, as well as their satisfaction with stability, speech, and esthetics on visual analogue scales. The treating prosthodontist rated the dentures for the same categories. Patient and clinician ratings were compared using correlations, t tests, and linear regression. RESULTS: None of the clinical variables were significantly correlated with patient satisfaction before or after treatment. The prosthodontist rated mandibular implant overdentures significantly better than conventional dentures regarding general satisfaction, stability, speech, and esthetics. Implant overdentures were also easier to fabricate (P < .0001). The prosthodontists' scores were not significantly correlated with patient scores for any question. CONCLUSION: Clinicians' assessments of the quality of denture-supporting tissues are poor predictors of patient satisfaction with mandibular implant or conventional prostheses. Prosthodontists and patients both rate mandibular implant overdentures as significantly superior to conventional dentures, but patients and clinicians do not usually agree when evaluating individual prostheses.     

Measuring patient satisfaction with mandibular prostheses

Objectives: Previous research has shown that patients' evaluations of their prostheses correlate poorly with the clinicians' assessments, as well as with intraoral anatomic factors. It has been recommended that researchers conduct more studies that use patient satisfaction as the primary outcome measure in treatment evaluation and that more attention be paid to understanding exactly what measures of patient satisfaction represent. In this study, the relationship between patients' ratings of general satisfaction and their perceptions of different aspects of mandibular prostheses is investigated. Methods: One hundred and twenty subjects applied to participate in a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing two types of mandibular prostheses: conventional dentures and implant prostheses. At baseline, they were asked to rate on 100 mm visual analog scales (VAS) factors that edentulous patients indicated were important to them. These included comfort, ability to chew, stability, esthetics, ability to speak and ease of cleaning of their conventional dentures. Subjects were also asked to rate their general satisfaction with their dentures. In addition, they selected the one quality of their denture that they considered to be most important. Results: Multiple regression methods revealed that gender, as well as patients' ratings of comfort, stability, esthetics, ability to chew and ability to speak with their prostheses contributed significantly to general satisfaction (F < 0.0001). Furthermore, 89% of the variation in ratings of general satisfaction was explained by these factors. In addition, patients who considered ability to chew as the most important factor associated with their dentures rated their general satisfaction significantly higher than the other subjects (P < 0.0003). Conclusion: Patient satisfaction with conventional dental prostheses is highly dependent on gender, and the appearance and functionality of the appliance. The combined effect of these factors explained most of the variation in the satisfaction ratings.     

One-year prosthetic outcomes with implant overdentures: a randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE: This randomized clinical trial examined implant overdenture (IOD) fabrication and maintenance time and costs, adjustment and repair incidence, and patient satisfaction after 1 year. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four patients received 2 mandibular implants and an IOD with either a bar with 2 clips or 2 ball attachments for denture retention. RESULTS: Fabrication time, number of appointments, and chair time for adjustments were similar for the 2 denture designs. The most common adjustments for both types were to the IOD contours. Ball-attachment dentures required about 8 times longer for repairs than bar-clip prostheses. Approximately 84% of patients with ball-attachment dentures needed at least 1 repair, versus 20% of those with a bar-clip mechanism. The most common repairs were replacement of the cap spring or cap for the ball-attachment IOD and replacement of a lost or loose clip for bar-clip dentures. DISCUSSION: Patients were equally and highly satisfied with the improvements in function, comfort, and appearance with both types of IOD compared to their original conventional dentures. CONCLUSIONS: Given equivalent levels of patient satisfaction with either method of retention and a much higher repair rate for the ball attachment, it is suggested that a bar-clip design be used rather than the particular ball attachment utilized in this study.     

Does a prosthodontist spend more time providing mandibular two-implant overdentures than conventional dentures?

PURPOSE: In this article, the time taken by a prosthodontist to fabricate and maintain mandibular overdentures retained by two implants and conventional dentures is compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty edentulous patients between the ages of 65 and 75 completed a randomized clinical trial. All received new maxillary conventional dentures and either a mandibular conventional denture (n = 30) or a two-implant overdenture on ball attachments (n = 30). The time spent by the prosthodontist and the number of visits required for treatment, including both scheduled and unscheduled visits, were recorded for each patient from preliminary impressions to 6 months following delivery. Data from the two groups were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: The prosthodontist spent a mean total time of 296 minutes in treating an implant overdenture patient and 282 minutes on a conventional denture patient during the period from preliminary impressions to the 6-month follow-up. The mean numbers of appointments were 10.1 (implant group) and 10.8 (conventional group). These differences were not significant. CONCLUSION: Although additional knowledge is required to treat patients with implant prostheses, the time required by the prosthodontist to provide two-implant mandibular overdentures with ball attachments was not significantly different than the time needed for conventional denture treatment.     

Patient expectations of oral implant-retained prostheses in a UK dental hospital

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The loss of the natural dentition leads to severe functional impairment in many edentulous adults. A prosthesis retained and supported by osseointegrated dental implants may provide a satisfactory solution for people who have lost all their natural teeth. However, little information is available as to what patients requesting implants expect of implant-retained prostheses. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the expectations of a group of edentulous patients requesting implant therapy. METHOD: The study included two groups: (1) a group of edentulous adults who requested implant therapy ('implant group'); and (2) an edentulous control group, of similar age and gender distribution as the implant group, receiving conventional complete dentures. Following a clinical and radiographic examination of the patients, data were collected using validated questionnaires. Both groups made a subjective assessment of current dentures. The implant group also completed a questionnaire which assessed expectations of implant-retained prostheses. RESULTS: Baseline satisfaction with current dentures was low in both groups, with the implant group being significantly less satisfied with comfort and stability of their mandibular dentures. Perceived ability of the implant group to chew hard foods was less than the control group. The implant group's expectations of an implant-retained prosthesis were significantly greater than for a conventional denture. CONCLUSION: Careful assessment of patient expectation of implant therapy is essential to determine appropriate treatment need, and to highlight unrealistic expectations.     

The effect of different mandibular dentures on antagonistic maxillary ridge

PURPOSE: Is to evaluate the antagonistic, maxillary ridge resorption for different prosthetic modalities mainly mucosa-supported mandibular complete overdentures, combined mucosa implant-supported mandibular complete overdenture, and lower conventional complete dentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen completely edentulous patients were divided into 3 groups; 5 patients each. Group I patients received maxillary conventional denture and mandibular overdentures retained by magnet attachment on 2 implants (mainly mucosa-supported overdenture). Group II patients received maxillary conventional denture and mandibular overdentures retained by bar attachment on 2 implants (combined mucosa implant-supported overdenture). Group III patients received upper and lower conventional complete denture. All patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically immediately after insertion and after 1 and 2 years. Panoramic radiographic film was used to evaluate the antagonistic maxillary ridge resorption. RESULTS: Indicated a more pronounced annual bone resorption of the antagonistic maxillary ridge after 2 years in patients with conventional complete denture wearers when compared with patients with combined mucosa implant-supported mandibular complete overdenture and mainly mucosa-supported mandibular complete overdenture groups. CONCLUSION: Using a combined mucosa implant-supported mandibular complete overdenture the amount of antagonistic maxillary alveolar bone resorption increases when compared with the mainly mucosa-supported complete overdenture.     

Within-subject comparison of maxillary long-bar implant-retained prostheses with and without palatal coverage: patient-based outcomes

Although maxillary implant overdentures are used in oral rehabilitation, different designs have not been compared previously in clinical trials. This crossover trial was designed to measure differences in patient satisfaction with maxillary long-bar implant overdentures with and without palatal coverage opposed by a fixed mandibular implant-supported prosthesis. Data were also gathered on new conventional dentures and on maxillary conventional dentures opposed by mandibular fixed prostheses. Sixteen participants were selected from a population wearing conventional dentures. Fifteen received new upper and lower dentures (1 drop-out). Four implants were placed in the maxilla and mandible (2 drop-outs). A mandibular fixed prosthesis was inserted in 13 participants, who were then divided into 2 groups. One group (n = 7) received long-bar overdentures with palate, then long-bar overdentures without palate. The other group (n = 6) received the same treatments in the reverse order. Mastication tests and psychometric evaluations using Visual Analog Scales and Categorical Scales were performed throughout the study. General satisfaction was very high with both maxillary implant-supported prostheses, as were ratings of almost all psychosocial and functional variables. There were no significant differences between treatments, suggesting that patients are equally satisfied with long-bar overdentures with and without palate when these are opposed by mandibular fixed prostheses. However, the ratings given to the maxillary implant prostheses were not significantly higher than for new conventional maxillary prostheses. This suggests that maxillary implant prostheses should not be considered as a general treatment of choice in patients with good bony support for maxillary conventional prostheses.     

Prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction with two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a 10-year randomized clinical study

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction with prosthetic care in two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures, whether implants were splinted with a bar or left with magnets or ball attachments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six completely edentulous patients had two Br?nemark implants placed in the mandibular canine area. A randomized procedure allocated patients into three groups of equal size, each with a different attachment system: bars, magnets, or balls. Prosthesis retention and mechanical as well as soft tissue complications were recorded in addition to patient satisfaction. A linear mixed model was fitted with attachment type and time as classification variables and adjusted by Turkey's multiple range test. RESULTS: Ball-retained overdentures showed at year 10 the greatest vertical retention force (1,327 g), followed by bars (1,067 g) and magnets (219 g). In the ball group, need for tightening of abutment screws was the most common mechanical complication; in the magnet and bar groups, respectively, the most common complications were wear and corrosion, and the need for clip activation. Prosthesis stability and chewing comfort for the overdenture were rated significantly lower for the magnet group compared to the ball and bar groups. Prosthesis stability of the maxillary denture was rated significantly lower in the bar group compared to ball and magnet groups. CONCLUSION: The ball group scored best in relation to retention of the overdenture, soft tissue complications, and patient satisfaction at year 10. The bar group scored lower for comfort and stability of the maxillary denture. Magnets offered patients the least comfort.     

A cost comparison of mandibular two-implant overdenture and conventional denture treatment

PURPOSE: This article compares the cost of mandibular two-implant overdenture treatment to that of conventional denture treatment in an academic teaching hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty edentulous patients (aged 65 to 75 years) participated in a randomized clinical trial. All patients received a new maxillary complete denture and either a mandibular conventional denture (n = 30) or an implant overdenture on two unsplinted implants (n = 30). Resource-based microcosting of direct and indirect costs (eg, expenses and time cost to patients) of all scheduled and unscheduled visits was conducted through 1 year following delivery of the prostheses. RESULTS: Mean direct costs (1999 CD dollars) for scheduled visits in the implant and conventional groups were 2,332 dollars and 814 dollars, respectively, and mean indirect costs were 1,150 dollars and 810 dollars, respectively. Differences between the two groups were significant. Twenty-six patients in each group had unscheduled visits during the study at a median direct cost for the overdentures of 85 dollars and 64 dollars for the conventional dentures. Median indirect costs for unscheduled visits were 163 dollars and 202 dollars, respectively. These differences were not significant. Mean total costs of the overdentures were 4,245 dollars and 2,316 dollars for the conventional dentures, and the between-group difference was significant. CONCLUSION: The direct cost of mandibular two-implant overdenture treatment was 2.4 times higher than that of conventional denture treatment. When indirect costs were added, the implant-to-conventional total cost ratio estimate was 1.8. These cost data can now be combined with estimates of the efficacy of the two types of prosthesis so practitioners and patients can make informed decisions about these prosthodontic treatment concepts.     

A randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-supported overdentures and conventional dentures in diabetic patients. Part II. Comparisons of masticatory performance

Statement of problem. Convincing evidence is lacking to demonstrate the functional superiority of mandibular implant-supported overdentures over conventional dentures.Purpose. This randomized clinical trial was conducted to compare masticatory functional effectiveness of mandibular implant-supported overdentures and conventional dentures in diabetic denture wearers with clinically acceptable metabolic control.Methods. A total of 102 edentulous diabetic patients, treated with or without insulin, were randomized to receive a new maxillary and either a mandibular conventional denture or an implant-supported overdenture. Treatment was completed in 89 patients, 37 with conventional dentures and 52 with Hader bar-clip attachment overdentures supported by two IMZ implants. Besides data from medical and dental histories, oromaxillofacial examinations, and questionnaires, masticatory tests were performed by patients before and at 6 and 24 months after treatment completion. Although 78 patients (28 in the conventional, 50 in the overdenture group) performed tests at 6 months after treatment, 68 (25 in the conventional, 43 in the overdenture) had performance data for both entry and 6-month posttreatment intervals.Results. The two treatment groups were highly comparable in terms of general characteristics, quality of original dentures, tissue support, and past denture experience. No significant differences were found between patients treated for diabetes with or without insulin. All four masticatory performance scores with original dentures were higher in the conventional denture group than the overdenture group. The posttreatment performance scores for the two treatment groups became similar because of the higher gains in the overdenture group. Patients with low initial performance scores showed greater posttreatment gains with both conventional dentures and overdentures.Conclusions. The implant-supported overdenture showed no significant advantage over the conventional denture for improving the ability to comminute food in this group of diabetic patients with higher than average initial functional levels observed for other groups of denture wearers in previous studies. (J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:632-40.)     

A comparison of patient's satisfaction between complete and partial removable denture wearers

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare satisfaction between complete denture (CD) and Kennedy Class I removable partial denture (RPD) wearers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 156 CD and 112 RPD wearers took a part in this study. From the primary group of the examined patients, only those whose RPDs and CDs were assessed as excellent or very good by the dentist, took a part in this study. Patients graded satisfaction of their dentures by using an analogue scale from 1 to 5 (1=unsatisfactory; 5=excellent). RESULTS: Both CD and RPD wearers were mostly satisfied with their dentures (the distribution of the scores of the patients' assessments was skewed towards the highest scores; more than half of the patients scored all the examined variables to the best score category). Complete Denture wearers were significantly more satisfied with chewing, speech and retention of maxillary denture than RPD wearers (P<0.05). Removable partial denture wearers were significantly more satisfied with the retention and the comfort of wearing mandibular denture (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between CD and RPD wearers for general satisfaction with their dentures, aesthetics and comfort of wearing maxillary denture (P>0.05; N.S.). CONCLUSIONS: A majority of CD and RPD wearers were satisfied with the dentures. CD wearers were more satisfied with speech, chewing and retention of maxillary denture, while RPD wearers were more satisfied with the retention and the comfort of wearing mandibular denture. Different groups of denture wearers have to make significant, but different adjustments to wear their dentures successfully.     

Masticatory performance with mandibular implant-retained overdentures

It was investigated in a clinical trial whether the masticatory performance of complete-denture wearers depended on the support for their mandibular dentures by implants or mucosa. The trial involved the provision of a new maxillary denture and either a new conventional mandibular denture (mucosa-borne), a mandibular overdenture retained by two IMZ-implants (implant-mucosa-borne), or a mandibular overdenture on a transmandibular implant (TMI; mainly implant-borne). In comparison with mandibular implant-retained overdentures, subjects with conventional dentures needed 1.5 to 3.6 times more chewing strokes for an equivalent reduction in particle size. No differences in masticatory performance were found between subjects with IMZ-implants and those with TMI. This suggests that the increased stability of the mandibular denture with implants determines the wearer's masticatory performance, rather than the support by implants.     

Immediate Loading of Two Implants with a Mandibular Implant‐Retained Overdenture: A New Treatment Protocol

Purpose: The aim of this study was to present the clinical outcomes of the immediate loading of two bar‐splinted implants retaining a mandibular overdenture. Materials and Methods: In a clinical trial, 124 edentulous patients were treated according to a new treatment concept, which involves the immediate loading of two bar‐splinted SLActive implants with an implant‐retained mandibular overdenture. The new conventional mandibular denture is used as a template for implant positioning and as an impression tray, and for mounting the retention clip by the dental laboratory. At the same day the implants are placed, the conventional denture is converted into an implant‐retained overdenture. During the healing and evaluation period, resonance frequency analysis (RFA) was undertaken to assess the effect of loading on implant stability and survival. Results: The survival rate of the implants was 98.8% during the evaluation period (12–40 months). Only 3 of the 248 implants were lost. During the healing (osseointegration) phase, the implant‐stability quotient increased significantly (p = .0001). During the evaluation period, four patients (3%) needed a relining of their mandibular overdenture, whereas 13 patients (11%) needed relining of the maxillary denture. Conclusions: Two interconnected implants can be successfully loaded by a mandibular overdenture at the same day of implant placement with a high survival rate of the implants. Only a few patients needed additional relining of the overdenture. Repeated RFA measurements can be useful in gauging implant stability and survival.     

Implant-retained overdentures compared with complete dentures with or without preprosthetic surgery. A prospective study followed over 10 years

The aim of this prospective randomized clinical trial was to evaluate and compare a set of clinical items and satisfaction of a group of edentulous patients during a ten-year follow-up. They were treated according to one of the following modalities: 61 patients with a mandibular overdenture on two implants (IMP-group), 60 patients with conventional complete dentures (VP-group) and 28 patients with a complete denture after preprosthetic surgery (MVP-group). It can be concluded that enosseous implants, serving as retention for a mandibular overdenture, have a high survival rate after ten years of follow-up (93%). The mean satisfaction score of the VP-group was lower than that of the IMP-group. The mean satisfaction score of the MVP-group was lower than that of the IMP-group.     

Two-implant mandibular overdentures: simple to fabricate and easy to wear

Success rates for titanium dental implants in the anterior mandible are very high. Because of these success rates, as well as lower costs, it is common to treat edentulous patients with just 2 implants and ball anchors for retention of the overdenture, instead of 4 implants and a bar. In this paper the fabrication of 2-implant overdentures is described. In a controlled clinical trial (to be reported elsewhere), 30 subjects received a 2-implant overdenture for the mandible and a conventional prosthesis for the maxilla. The 30 control patients received conventional complete dentures for both jaws. The stability of the overdentures was excellent, and the lingual dimensions of the denture could be reduced to the level of the mylohyoid line to provide more space for the tongue. In patients with tense labial musculature or a limited amount of attached gingiva, it was important to elevate the shoulder of the implant and ball abutment above the gingival level to avoid peri-implant problems. Significantly fewer visits for adjustment related to post-placement pressure spots were required for mandibular overdentures than for conventional mandibular prostheses.