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

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.     

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.     

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 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 : 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.)     

Randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-supported overdentures and conventional dentures in diabetic patients. Part III: comparisons of patient satisfaction.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: There is insufficient evidence to indicate the functional superiority of mandibular implant-supported overdentures to justify their use in edentulous patients. PURPOSE: This study compared the benefits perceived by patients who received a new maxillary denture and a mandibular conventional denture (CD) and an implant-supported overdenture (IOD). METHOD: New maxillary and mandibular dentures were delivered to 89 diabetic denture wearers with clinically acceptable metabolic control who treated their diabetes either with insulin (IT) or without insulin (NIT). Of the 89 patients, 37 received maxillary and mandibular CDs and 52 received a maxillary CD and an IOD. Two questionnaires with categorical responses were used; the first contained 13 questions to ascertain a patient's absolute assessments of original dentures at entry and study dentures at 6- and 24-months after treatment completion; the second questionnaire had 11 questions that assessed the relative change perceived by patients with study dentures. Of the 78 patients who completed the posttreatment (PT) assessments at 6 months, 68 patients provided longitudinal data for questionnaire I and cross-sectional data for questionnaire II. In addition, 46 patients (18 CD and 28 IOD) also provided PT assessments at 24 months. RESULTS: Both mean scores and percentage distributions of longitudinal data for questionnaire I showed perceptual improvements with both types of study dentures. Improvements were higher in the IOD than in the CD group. Mean scores failed to show any significant differences between the 2 treatment groups. The only significant difference was found in the change in percentage distributions for perceptual chewing ability in favor of the IOD group. Even this advantage was lost at 24 months. With the comparative questionnaire, a higher percentage of patients in the IOD group than in the CD group perceived improvements with study dentures from their original dentures in chewing ability, chewing comfort, and denture security. However, mean differences were statistically significant in favor of the IOD group only for chewing ability and less difficulty to chew hard foods. CONCLUSION: The mandibular implant-supported overdenture offers same advantage in terms of perceived chewing function over the conventional denture.     

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.     

Patient satisfaction and dissatisfaction with mandibular two-implant overdentures using different attachment systems: 5-year outcomes

BACKGROUND: Different attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures could influence levels of patient satisfaction. Positive consensus of the majority of patients being satisfied does not preclude the possibility of dissatisfaction for some. PURPOSE: To evaluate patient satisfaction before and after 5 years of wearing mandibular two-implant overdentures using different attachment systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 106 edentulous participants enrolled in a clinical trial completed a preliminary self-report inventory of their original complete denture complaints. New complete maxillary dentures and mandibular two-implant overdentures were provided to each participant using one of six different attachment systems. Patient satisfaction was determined at pretreatment; at baseline with mandibular two-implant overdenture insertion; and then annually for 5 years, using visual analogue and Likert-type scales. ReSULTS: Patient satisfaction with mandibular two-implant overdentures at baseline was significantly improved in all domains compared to pretreatment (old dentures) and sustained up to the 5-year recall. The level of satisfaction with Straumann gold alloy matrices at 5 years was significantly lower than that with other attachment systems. Highly significant differences were found with some social and psychological aspects by the fifth year compared to baseline. Diagnostic and prognostic indicators from a pretreatment inventory identified 12 participants (13.5%) who were dissatisfied. These indicators revealed a maladaptive predisposition to mandibular two-implant overdentures. ConclusIONS: A mandibular two-implant overdenture (opposing a conventional complete maxillary denture) will improve patient satisfaction, regardless of the attachment system. Careful evaluation of pretreatment complaints with conventional dentures can possibly identify patient dissatisfaction with mandibular two-implant overdentures.     

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.     

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.     

Patients' evaluation of two occlusal schemes for implant overdentures

Background: There is an absence of conclusive evidence for occlusal schemes in implant overdentures. Purpose: To investigate the consequences of two different occlusal schemes on levels of satisfaction for patients wearing implant overdentures. Materials and Methods: Within an existing randomized controlled clinical trial, a physiologic occlusal scheme was compared with a lingualized occlusal scheme for 18 selected participants all with implant overdentures. Nine participants had conventional maxillary complete dentures opposing mandibular 2‐implant overdentures; a further nine participants had maxillary 3‐implant overdentures opposing mandibular 2‐implant overdentures. All participants recruited had been wearing their original prostheses for 3 years with a bilateral balance occlusal scheme. The participants' existing satisfaction levels, as a baseline, were determined using visual analogue scale questionnaires. They were followed by similar assessments of two further occlusal schemes using 2‐month assessment periods. On completion of the study, the participants selected their preferred occlusal scheme and semiformal interviews were conducted to assess the rationale for their choices. Results: Baseline data showed all the participants had pre‐existing high satisfaction levels. Thereafter, of those participants that received lingualized occlusion first, 55.6% reported that the physiologic occlusion was better than lingualized occlusion. For those participants who received the physiologic occlusion first, 85.7% reported that physiologic occlusion was better than lingualized occlusion. On completion of the study, 64.7% of the participants preferred the physiologic occlusion, 35.3% preferred the lingualized occlusion. However, when the two groups' satisfaction scores were modeled using the three main key indicator questions (general satisfaction, general ability to chew, or general function), there were no significant differences between them. Conclusions: Within the limitations of a small number of participants, the majority of them still indicated a preference for a physiologic occlusion for implant overdentures. Improved function was given as the main indicator for that preference. Having implant overdentures in one or both jaws is not a formative factor in patient's opinions on occlusal schemes.     

The impact of dietary advice on edentulous adults' denture satisfaction and oral health‐related quality of life 6 months after intervention

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the impact of customised dietary advice on patients' satisfaction with their dentures and oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL) in patients wearing implant‐supported mandibular overdentures (IOD) or conventional dentures (CD). Materials and methods: In this prospective cohort study, 28 IOD (two implant‐retained mandibular overdenture) and 26 CD patients completed a denture satisfaction scale and the 20‐item oral health impact profile (OHIP‐20) before and 6 months following provision of customised dietary advice. Results: At 6 months following provision of individualised dietary advice, the IOD group showed significantly greater satisfaction than the conventional group for denture comfort (80.6, ± 15.6, vs. 68.7 ± 15.6 P=0.001), stability (75.8 ± 15.9 vs. 59.5 ± 30.4, P=0.002), and perceived chewing ability (79 ± 30.4 vs. 59.5 ± 30.4, P=0.027) ± when adjusted for baseline scores. Before delivery of the dietary advice there were no significant differences between groups for Satisfaction or OHIP scores. No difference in OHRQoL was seen between groups. Conclusions: The delivery of customised dietary advice to edentulous patients impacts differently on their satisfaction with denture comfort, stability and chewing ability depending on the nature of their prosthesis. This re‐evaluation of satisfaction occurs when edentulous patients challenge themselves to consume more fruits, vegetables and fibre‐rich foods. The IOD group reported an increased level of satisfaction and perceived chewing ability whereas it appeared that CD wearers may have had their awareness of the shortcomings of this sort of prosthesis reawakened. To cite this article:
Ellis JS, Elfeky AF, Moynihan PJ, Seal C, Hyland RM, Thomason M. The impact of dietary advice on edentulous adults' denture satisfaction and oral health‐related quality of life 6 months after intervention.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21 , 2010; 386–391.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2009.01859.x     

Posterior jaw bone resorption in osseointegrated implant-supported overdentures

For several years, osseointegrated implant-supported overdentures have been used in the rehabilitation of full edentulism with excellent results, at least in the lower jaw. This study involved 3 groups of patients with different prosthetic reconstructions: (1) mandibular overdentures supported by 2 implants connected by a bar (30 patients), (2) mandibular fixed prostheses supported by 4-6 implants (25 patients) and (3) mandibular complete dentures without implant support as controls (85 patients). The primary aim of this study was to examine on orthopantomograms (by means of the area index to minimize distortion and magnification errors), posterior mandibular ridge resorption in the 3 treatment groups. The present data demonstrated a minimal posterior mandibular ridge resorption in patients with fixed implant-supported prostheses. A more considerable posterior ridge resorption was observed in the complete denture group and especially in the overdenture wearers. For the latter, the annual posterior jaw bone resorption after the post-extraction remodeling period of 6 months, was 2- to 3-fold that of full denture wearers. When patients were edentulous for more than 10 years, the difference between the 2 latter groups disappeared. It is suggested that although the overdenture design on 2 implants offers advantages from a financial and failure rate point of view, its indications in younger patients should cautiously be evaluated in a long-term perspective concerning posterior mandibular bone resorption.