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.     

Comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-retained overdentures and conventional dentures among middle-aged edentulous patients: satisfaction and functional assessment

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.     

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.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

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.     

Can general dentists produce successful implant overdentures with minimal training?

Objectives

This study was carried out to determine whether inexperienced dentists can provide two-implant overdentures that are as satisfactory and of the same cost as those provided by experienced prosthodontists.

Methods

Edentulous elders were enrolled in a randomized controlled clinical trial to compare the effects of mandibular conventional and two-implant overdentures on nutrition. They were randomly assigned to groups that were treated by either an experienced prosthodontist or by a newly-graduated dentist with minimal training in implant treatment. Data for this study were obtained during the treatment of the first 140 subjects enrolled. The change in patient ratings of satisfaction after treatment, laboratory costs and the number of unscheduled visits up to 6 months following prosthesis delivery were compared.

Results

Satisfaction was significantly higher with implant overdentures than with conventional dentures, but there were no differences in scores for either prosthesis between the groups treated by experienced specialists or new dentists. Furthermore, six of the seven inexperienced dentists reported that they found the mandibular two-implant overdenture easier to provide than the conventional denture.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that general dentists can provide successful mandibular two-implant overdentures with minimal training.     

Sex differences in denture satisfaction

OBJECTIVES: Males and females differ in their responses to many health conditions and treatments. The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to determine whether there are differences in the way that male and female edentulous elders rate their satisfaction with new mandibular implant overdentures (IODs) and conventional dentures (CDs), at 6 and 12 months following delivery. METHODS: Edentulous elders (n=256) were randomly assigned to receive maxillary conventional dentures and either mandibular overdentures supported by two implants with ball attachments or conventional dentures. Participants rated their general satisfaction, as well as other features of their dentures (comfort, stability, ability to chew, aesthetics, etc.) prior to treatment and 6 and 12 months after delivery. RESULTS: Ratings of satisfaction with IODs were significantly higher than with CDs. Six months after delivery, females in the CD group rated their general satisfaction and satisfaction with ability to chew and aesthetics significantly lower than did the males. The sex differences in the CD group remained at 12 months after delivery. However, males and females in the IOD group rated their general satisfaction and all six subcategories equally. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly females are less satisfied with conventional dentures than elderly males with regards to aesthetics and ability to chew, but equally satisfied with implant overdentures. At 6 and 12 months after delivery, elderly edentulous males and females wearing mandibular implant overdentures were significantly more satisfied than those wearing conventional dentures.     

Oral and general health-related quality of life with conventional and implant dentures

Implant overdentures and conventional prostheses have been compared in several trials using a variety of functional and oral health-related quality of life (OHQOL) outcomes. In this paper, we describe the impact of implant overdentures on general and OHQOL in seniors. OBJECTIVES: To compare the oral health-related and general quality of life of seniors (aged 65-75 years) who received either mandibular implant overdentures or conventional dentures. METHODS: Sixty edentulous patients were recruited. Thirty received mandibular overdentures retained by two implants (IOD) and a conventional maxillary denture, the other 30 subjects received new maxillary and mandibular conventional complete dentures (CD). All completed the 20-item version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-20) before treatment, then at two and 6 months after delivery of the dentures. The SF-36 general health questionnaire was completed at baseline and 6 months only. RESULTS: Pretreatment and 6-month data from 55 subjects were analyzed. Those who received the IODs had significantly better OHIP-20 total scores at 6 months. Results for IOD subjects were also superior in the functional limitation, physical pain, physical disability and psychological disability subscales. While no significant between group difference was found on the SF-36 health survey, significant pre-post-treatment differences within the IOD group were detected for the role emotional, vitality and the social function scales. CONCLUSIONS: Mandibular overdentures retained by two implants provide elderly patients with better OHQOL. General health-related quality of life improved in the implant group.     

Within-subject comparisons of maxillary fixed and removable implant prostheses: Patient satisfaction and choice of prosthesis

Dental implants provide patients with restorative options for the edentulous maxilla. Both fixed and removable prostheses can be attached to the edentulous maxilla, but the efficacy of different designs has not been determined. In this two-session within-subject crossover trial we compared maxillary implant retained fixed prostheses with removable implant overdentures opposed by mandibular implant-supported overdentures. Sixteen patients, who had previously received mandibular implants, entered the study and received four to six maxillary implants. After dropouts as a consequence of a lack of osseointegration and general health problems, 13 remained. Of these, five received the removable prosthesis first and eight the fixed prosthesis. After 2 months, the prostheses were exchanged and the second was also worn for 2 months. Psychometric measurements of general satisfaction with the prostheses as well as comfort, ability to speak, stability, esthetics, ease of cleaning and occlusion were obtained once each prosthesis had been worn for 2 months. Chewing ability was assessed for seven types of food. Removable long-bar overdentures received significantly higher ratings of general satisfaction than fixed prostheses (P = 0.003). Patients also rated their ability to speak and ease of cleaning significantly better with the removable overdentures. Nine patients chose to keep the removable prosthesis and four preferred to keep the fixed prosthesis. The results suggest that maxillary removable overdentures on multiple implants may provide patients with better function than fixed prostheses.     

Impact of implant support for mandibular dentures on satisfaction, oral and general health-related quality of life: a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine systematically the data published on the efficacy of mandibular implant-retained overdentures from the patient's perspective.
Material and methods: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and The Cochrane Systematic Reviews Database were searched and complemented by hand searching. All randomized-controlled trials published in English or French up to April 2007 were included, in which conventional dentures and mandibular implant overdentures in adult edentulous individuals were compared. The outcomes of interest were patient satisfaction, oral and general health-related quality of life. Random effects models were used to pool the effect sizes (ES) of all included studies.
Results: Ten publications of seven randomized-controlled trials were identified and eight were included in the meta-analysis. When compared with mandibular conventional dentures, implant overdentures were rated to be more satisfactory at a clinically relevant level [pooled ES 0.80, z =3.56, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.36–1.24, P =0.0004], but a statistical heterogeneity was found (χ²=31.63, df=5, P <0.00001, I ²=84%). The pooled ES for oral health quality of life was −0.41 ( z =1.31, 95% CI, −1.02 to 0.20; P =0.19, χ²=11.53, df=2, P <0.003, I ²=83%). There was a lack of evidence to show the impact of mandibular implant overdenture on perceived general health.
Conclusions: Our findings suggest that, although mandibular implant-retained overdentures may be more satisfying for edentulous patients than new conventional dentures, the magnitude of the effect is still uncertain. There is a need for additional evidence including cost-effectiveness analyses on the impact of mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures.     

Implant therapy to improve quality of life.

Excessive alveolar bone atrophy often confounds a conventional therapy with complete dentures. Implant therapy has found a way to solve the problem through enhanced stability and retention, thus increasing its functionality, leading to improved patient satisfaction and a higher quality of life. This article describes an implant-supported restoration of a patient with reduced oral health and high Oral Health Impact Profile values (OHIP-14). Upon improvement of oral hygiene and the compliance of the patient, the residual dentition was extracted and four implants were inserted, both in the maxillary and the mandibular arches. After the healing period was completed, two implant-supported prostheses with rigid bars for retention were fabricated. The patient's esthetics, phonetics, and masticatory function were properly restored at the time of delivery. A significant improvement in the patient's quality of life was noticed. In comparison to conventional dentures, the implant-supported overdentures offer better function and comfort for many patients.     

Restoration with implants in patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa and patient satisfaction with the implant-supported superstructure

PURPOSE: The use of endosseous implants in the prosthetic restoration of edentulous patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB) may provide improved outcomes when compared with traditional prosthetic methods. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of placing endosseous implants in patients with RDEB and to compare the treatment outcomes of fixed and removable implant-supported restorations in the edentulous maxilla or mandible with the main emphasis on patient response. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six patients with RDEB were treated with implants. All patients were completely edentulous in either the maxilla or mandible and had marked oral involvement, with alterations in the soft and hard tissues in all cases. Three patients were treated with fixed, screw-retained implant-supported prostheses, and 3 were treated with removable implant-supported prostheses. Six months after prosthetic restoration, patients were given a questionnaire to assess their psychologic well-being and satisfaction with the implant-supported restoration marked on a visual analog scale. RESULTS: A total of 38 dental implants (21 maxillary, 17 mandibular) were placed in 6 patients. The implant success rate was 97.9%. The average follow-up from implant placement was 5.5 years (range, 1 to 9). The fixed and removable implant-supported prostheses were associated with improvements in comfort and retention, function, esthetics and appearance, taste, speech, and self-esteem. The level of satisfaction was slightly higher in patients with a fixed prosthesis. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that endosseous implants can be successfully placed and provide support for prostheses in patients with RDEB. Patients with fixed prostheses and overdentures were satisfied with their implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous maxilla and mandible.     

Conventional Rehabilitation of Edentulous Patients: The Impact on Oral Health-Related Quality of Life and Patient Satisfaction

PURPOSE: This study examined patient satisfaction and oral health-related impacts on the quality of life of patients restored with complete conventional or duplicate dentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients (aged 55 to 85 years) were assigned to receive new complete maxillary and mandibular dentures using either a conventional or duplication technique according to clinical need. Patients rated their satisfaction with their dentures on 100-mm visual analogue scales before treatment and 1 month after delivery of their new dentures. Their oral health-related quality of life was determined by completion of an Oral Health-Related Impacts on Quality of Life questionnaire (OHIP-20) at the same time points. RESULTS: Both groups of patients had similar satisfaction and OHIP ratings at the beginning of the study and 1 month after delivery of their new dentures. The two groups were comparable with regard to age and gender. Statistically significant improvement in the OHIP domains of functional limitation and physical and psychological disability was seen in both groups. The conventional group also showed significant improvement with regard to handicap, whereas the duplicate denture group showed significant improvement in the patients' rating of pain and psychological discomfort. Patient satisfaction improved significantly in both groups across all variables except ease of cleaning and ability to speak. The duplication technique resulted in patients being less satisfied with the esthetics of their new dentures. CONCLUSION: In this study, the provision of new dentures either with a conventional technique or with a duplication technique resulted in an overall improvement in oral health-related quality of life and satisfaction. These improvements were statistically significant for some domains, which varied depending on the technique used for construction of the new dentures. Neither technique was seen to be superior, which may be a reflection of the patients' treatment expectations at the outset. Patients' reported satisfaction with their dentures and the impact that dentures have on their quality of life may not be useful measures for determining the most appropriate technique for providing new dentures.     

Treatment outcomes with removable partial dentures: a comparison between patient and prosthodontist assessments

PURPOSE: This article presents the results from a survey of patients' degree of satisfaction with their removable partial dentures (RPD) and the comparison between patient and prosthodontist assessments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 165 experienced RPD wearers filled in a questionnaire and graded their RPDs depending on their level of satisfaction. A scale ranging from 1 to 5 was used to assess general satisfaction with RPDs and to assess their esthetics, retention, and hygiene. A specialist in prosthodontics assessed the same prostheses using the same scale, not knowing the patient's opinion. RESULTS: The patients' assessments were high, and more than half of them graded their dentures as excellent. On average, all variables were assessed higher by the patients than by the prosthodontist (P < .001). For the patients who gave the worst grades to their dentures, the grades were lower than the prosthodontist's (P < .001), while the satisfied patients graded their dentures much better than did the prosthodontist (P < .001). CONCLUSION: On average, patient assessment of the treatment outcomes with RPDs was less critical than prosthodontist assessment. However, the few dissatisfied patients assessed their dentures worse than did the prosthodontist.     

AICRG, Part IV: Patient satisfaction reported for Ankylos implant prostheses

PROBLEM: Although many maxillary dentures exhibit sufficient retention and stability for patients to adapt well to them, mandibular dentures present a major challenge. The introduction of the endosseous dental implant provided the opportunity for the patient to have esthetic replacements (implant prostheses) that were retentive and stable for all missing natural teeth. METHOD: This paper reports on the satisfaction of over 470 patients with implant prostheses fabricated using a new and innovative implant design (Ankylos, Dentsply-Friadent, Mannheim, Germany). RESULTS: A total of 1500 Ankylos implants were placed, restored, and followed for 3 to 5 years. Patients were asked to respond to a series of questions related to their satisfaction with their new replacements for missing natural teeth. A total of 95.6% of the patients rated chewing ability with Ankylos prosthesis as excellent to good; 92.2% indicated a significant improvement in their ability to chew; 92.6% reported overall clinical function much better than conventional dentures; 99.1% indicated that speech had improved or was not changed; 96.3% indicated hot and cold foods tasted better; 98.8% indicated no pain or discomfort during clinical function; 99.4% liked their new implant prosthesis; 98.0% would seek implant-prostheses treatment again, if necessary; 99.1% would recommend implant prostheses to friends and relatives; and 98.8% indicated the advantages of Ankylos prostheses far exceeded any disadvantages that may exist. CONCLUSIONS: Patients indicated that they (1) were highly satisfied with the final results of the replacements for their natural teeth that were retained or supported by this new implant design, (2) would not hesitate to recommend this form of treatment to their friends and relatives, and (3) would not hesitate to seek the same treatment again if necessary in the future.     

Comparisons of chewing difficulty of consumed foods with mandibular conventional dentures and implant-supported overdentures in diabetic denture wearers

PURPOSE: This study compared the chewing difficulty of foods in diets of denture wearers with mandibular conventional and implant-supported overdentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One-week dietary logs were evaluated for 58 subjects with controlled diabetes at baseline with their original dentures and with new dentures 6 months after treatment completion. Subjects received new maxillary and mandibular complete dentures, 21 with mandibular conventional dentures and 37 with implant-supported overdentures. A 10-point chewing difficulty rating scale (10 for most difficult-to-chew foods) was used to rate food items in the dietary logs. RESULTS: ANOVA showed no differences between the chewing difficulty mean scores for all foods consumed either at baseline or posttreatment for the two groups. However, the mean scores for the combined consumption frequency of difficult-to-chew foods (6 to 10) showed a significant decrease following treatment with both types of dentures. This decline did not differ significantly between the denture types. With original dentures, more than 91% of subjects consumed foods with chewing difficulty scores of 6 to 10 at least seven times per week. With study dentures, only 21% maintained this level of consumption, with the frequency decreasing to four to six times per week in 24% and one to three times per week in 43% of subjects. The declines in consumption frequency of more difficult to chew foods with study dentures were in a higher percentage of subjects in the implant than in the conventional group. CONCLUSION: After 7 months of adaptation to new dentures, patients consumed fewer difficult-to-chew foods than with their original dentures. This decline was more frequent with mandibular implant-supported overdentures than with conventional dentures. Dietary counseling should be considered as part of implant and complete denture therapy.