The influence of maximum bite force on patient satisfaction and quality of life of patients wearing mandibular implant overdentures

The treatment of edentulism with traditional complete dentures can often induce impaired masticatory function due to limited retention and stability, especially in the lower jaw. Mandibular interforaminal implants have been widely used to stabilize the dentures, consequently improving masticatory performance in edentulous individuals. The aim of the present study was to document the influence of this improved masticatory function on patient satisfaction and quality of life of patients wearing mandibular implant-supported overdentures. Sixty-two patients treated with various types of implant-supported mandibular overdentures between 2004 and 2007 were included in this retrospective study. Maximum bite force (MBF) was measured bilaterally using a device with 2 strain gauges connected to a strain gauge measurement system. All the included patients were asked to fill out visual analog scale (VAS) forms based on general and chewing satisfaction and OHIP-14 forms. Results were analyzed by the Spearman rho test. No statistically significant correlation was found between MBF values and VAS general or VAS chewing satisfaction or Oral Health Impact Profile scores (P > .05). The results indicate that MBF is not associated with the satisfaction or quality of life of implant-supported mandibular overdenture wearers.     

Patient satisfaction and preference with magnet, bar-clip, and ball-socket retained mandibular implant overdentures: a cross-over clinical trial

PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to: (1) determine patient satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures using magnet, bar-clip, and ball-socket attachments; and (2) assess the relation between maximum bite force and patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a cross-over clinical trial, 18 edentulous patients with mandibular denture complaints received two mandibular implants and new mandibular and maxillary dentures. The mandibular denture was initially without any kind of attachment system, but it was fitted with one of the attachment types after 3 months. The attachments were changed 3 months thereafter, in random order. A questionnaire on denture complaints was administered at baseline (with the old denture), after 3 months of function with the new denture without attachments, and after 3 months of function with each of the attachments (within-subject comparison). In addition, patients were asked to express their overall appreciation of their dentures on a VAS. Patients' preferences were determined at the end of the experiment. Maximum bite forces were obtained from a previous study with the same population. Five scales of denture complaints were constructed. Mean scale and VAS scores at the five evaluation points were compared among the groups. Pearson correlation was calculated between maximum bite force and scale and VAS scores. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Mandibular implant-supported overdenture treatment reduced various denture complaints. The VAS score better reflected patients' preferences than did scale score. Patients strongly preferred bar-clip (10/18 subjects) and ball-socket attachments (7/18 subjects) over magnet attachments (1/18 subjects). Patients' preferences could not be predicted on the basis of baseline observations. Maximum bite force was not correlated to scale or VAS score. Hence, patients with higher maximum bite forces were not necessarily more satisfied.     

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.     

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.)     

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.     

Neuromuscular coordination of masticatory muscles in subjects with two types of implant-supported prostheses

OBJECTIVES: To compare the electromyographic (EMG) characteristics of masticatory muscles in patients with fixed implant-supported prostheses and implant overdentures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Nineteen subjects aged 45-79 years were examined. Fourteen were edentulous and had been successfully rehabilitated with (a) maxillary and mandibular implant-supported fixed prostheses (seven patients); (b) mandibular implant overdentures and maxillary complete dentures (seven patients). Five control subjects had natural dentition or single/partial (no more than two teeth) tooth or implant fixed dentures. Surface EMG of the masseter and temporal muscles was performed during unilateral gum chewing and during maximum teeth clenching. To reduce biological and instrumental noise, all values were standardized as percentage of a maximum clenching on cotton rolls. RESULTS: During clenching, temporal muscle symmetry was larger in control subjects and fixed implant-supported prosthesis patients than in overdenture patients (analysis of variance, P=0.005). No differences were found in masseter muscle symmetry or in muscular torque. Muscle activities (integrated areas of the EMG potentials over time) were significantly larger in control subjects than in implant-supported prosthesis patients (P=0.014). In both patient groups, a poor neuromuscular coordination during chewing, with altered muscular patterns, and a smaller left-right symmetry than in control subjects were found (P=0.05). No differences in masticatory frequency were found. CONCLUSION: Surface EMG analysis of clenching and chewing showed that fixed implant-supported prostheses and implant overdentures were functionally equivalent. Neuromuscular coordination during chewing was inferior to that found in subjects with natural dentition.     

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.     

Oral function in subjects with overdentures supported by osseointegrated implants

Nine subjects treated with overdentures on osseointegrated implants in the mandible were functionally evaluated before and after treatment. The last recordings were performed 1 yr after treatment. The evaluation comprised a subjective and a clinical examination. Measurements of bite force and of chewing efficiency were also performed. The bite force was measured during gentle biting, biting as when chewing and biting with maximal effort. Almonds were used as test food. All subjects improved subjectively as well as clinically after treatment. The bite force during gentle biting increased on average from 17.3 N before treatment to 24.0 N 1 yr after treatment. A corresponding improvement of biting as when chewing was also found, from on average 24.0 N before to 38.7 N after treatment. The maximal bite force increased from on average 74.6 N at the baseline examination to 131.5 N at the 1-yr follow-up. The chewing efficiency improved from Ci = 4 (Median value) before treatment to Ci = 2.8 (Median value) after treatment. It is concluded that treatment with an overdenture supported by osseointegrated implants in the mandible improves oral function compared to the situation before treatment.     

Masticatory performance and chewing experience with implant-retained mandibular overdentures

The relationship between masticatory performance and chewing experience has not yet been explored for patients with implant-retained overdentures. Although many relationships have been found between parameters of objective and subjective oral function, the structure of these relationships remain unclear. Therefore, we studied in a randomized clinical trial the relationship between the comminution of an artificial test food, i.e. masticatory performance, and the subjective chewing experience. The trial involved a comparison between two groups receiving implant treatment and one group receiving conventional complete dentures (CD). The implant treatment involved either a mainly implant-supported mandibular overdenture on a transmandibular implant (TMI) or an implant-tissue-supported mandibular overdenture on two IMZ implants (IMZ). Masticatory performance as well as chewing experience were substantially better for the implant-retained overdentures compared with the complete denture group. No significant differences emerged between the TMI and the IMZ group. A multiple regression analysis did not provide any comprehensibility in the relationship between masticatory performance and the variables of chewing experience. In the linear structural relation analysis (LISREL) no direct relationship was found between masticatory performance and functional complaints mandibular denture. The results show that an improvement in masticatory performance does not imply the same improvement in chewing experience and vice versa.     

The implant-supported overdenture as an alternative to the complete mandibular denture

BACKGROUND: Approximately one-third of Americans older than 65 years of age are fully edentulous, requiring replacement of missing teeth. While the conventional denture may meet the needs of many patients, others require more retention, stability, function and esthetics, especially in the mandible. The implant-supported prosthesis is an alternative to the conventional removable denture. METHODS: This article describes the strengths of the implant-supported mandibular overdenture. The authors also outline the risks of this approach. They performed a review of recent literature to summarize the reported success rate of implants used to support a mandibular overdenture. RESULTS: The literature review indicates that implants placed in the anterior mandible (anterior to the foramen) have a success rate better than 95 percent. Patients have reported a high degree of satisfaction with the implant-supported overdenture. CONCLUSIONS: The literature indicates that implant-supported overdentures in the mandible provide predictable results with improved stability, retention, function and patient satisfaction compared with conventional dentures. Implants placed in the anterior mandible have a success rate equal to or greater than 95 percent. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: When planning treatment for patients with edentulous mandibles, clinicians should consider the implant-supported prosthesis.     

Oral function in subjects with overdentures supported by osseointegrated implants

Abstract – Nine subjects treated with overdentures on osseointegrated implants in the mandible were functionally evaluated before and after treatment. The last recordings were performed 1 yr after treatment. The evaluation comprised a subjective and a clinical examination. Measurements of bite force and of chewing efficiency were also performed. The bite force was measured during gentle biting, biting as when chewing and biting with maximal effort. Almonds, were used as test food. All subjects improved subjectively as well as clinically after treatment. The bite force during gentle biting increased on average from 17.3 N before treatment to 24.0 N 1 yr after treatment. A corresponding improvement of biting as when chewing was also found, from on average 24.0 N before to 38.7 N after treatment. The maximal bite force increased from on average 74.6 N at the baseline examination to 131.5 N at the 1-yr follow-up. The chewing efficiency improved from C_i=4 (Median value) before treatment to C_i=2.8 (Median value) after treatment. It is concluded that treatment with an overdenture supported by osseointegrated implants in the mandible improves oral function compared to the situation before treatment.     

Biting and chewing in overdentures, full dentures, and natural dentitions

It has been suggested that the provision of dental implants can improve the oral function of subjects with severely resorbed mandibles, possibly restoring function to the level experienced by satisfied wearers of conventional complete dentures. Nevertheless, a quantitative comparison has never been made and can be drawn from the literature only with difficulty, since studies differ greatly in methodology. To make such a comparison, we measured bite force and chewing efficiency by using identical methods in subjects with overdentures, complete full dentures, and natural dentitions. Our results indicated that bite forces achieved with overdentures on dental implants were between those achieved with artificial and natural dentitions. Chewing efficiency was significantly greater than that of subjects with full dentures (low mandible), but was still lower than that of subjects with full dentures (high mandible) and overdentures on bare roots. Differences in the height of the mandible revealed significant differences in chewing efficiency between the two full-denture groups. Furthermore, subjects with a shortened dental arch exerted bite forces similar to those of subjects with a complete-natural dentition, but their chewing efficiency was limited due to the reduced occlusal area. For all groups combined, a significant correlation was found between maximum bite force and chewing efficiency. Nearly half of the variation in chewing efficiency was explained by bite force alone.     

Improving masticatory performance,bite force,nutritional state and patient's satisfaction with implant overdentures: a systematic review of the literature

Oral function with removable dentures is improved when dental implants are used for support. A variety of methods is used to measure change in masticatory performance, bite force, patient's satisfaction and nutritional state. A systematic review describing the outcome of the various methods to assess patients' appreciation has not been reported. The objective is to systematically review the literature on the possible methods to measure change in masticatory performance, bite force, patient's satisfaction and nutritional state of patients with removable dentures and to describe the outcome of these. Medline, Embase and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched (last search July 1, 2014). The search was completed by hand to identify eligible studies. Two reviewers independently assessed the articles. Articles should be written in English. Study design should be prospective. The outcome should be any assessment of function/satisfaction before and at least 1 year after treatment. Study population should consist of fully edentulous subjects. Treatment should be placement of any kind of root‐form implant(s) to support a mandibular and/or maxillary overdenture. Fifty‐three of 920 found articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A variety of methods was used to measure oral function; mostly follow‐up was 1 year. Most studies included mandibular overdentures, three studies included maxillary overdentures. Implant‐supported dentures were accompanied by high patient's satisfaction with regard to denture comfort, but this high satisfaction was not always accompanied by improvement in general quality of life (QoL) and/or health‐related QoL. Bite force improved, masseter thickness increased and muscle activity in rest decreased. Patients could chew better and eat more tough foods. No changes were seen in dietary intake, BMI and blood markers. Improvements reported after 1 year apparently decreased slightly with time, at least on the long run. Treating complete denture wearers with implants to support their denture improves their chewing efficiency, increases maximum bite force and clearly improves satisfaction. The effect on QoL is uncertain, and there is no effect on nutritional state.     

Computerised occlusal analysis of mini-dental implant-retained mandibular overdentures: A 1-year prospective clinical study

Occlusal analysis is a substantial tool for the functional improvement evaluation after using implant-retained overdenture comparing to complete denture without dental implant retaining. To evaluate occlusal pattern, chewing force distribution in mini-dental implant-retained mandibular overdentures by computerised occlusal analysis system and to compare patient satisfaction after 1-year function. Thirty-one patients wearing complete dentures were included in the study. Prior to mini-dental implant-retained treatment, all patients were assessed for occlusion and force distribution using computerised occlusal analysis system (T-Scan^®), and then, all patients received two mini-dental implant-retained mandibular overdentures. Mini-dental implants were immediately loaded using low vertical profile attachments (Equator^®). T-Scan^® was used to evaluate chewing force and force distribution at 1 day, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months. The patient satisfactions before implant placement and after 1 year were evaluated using questionnaires which included satisfaction of denture quality, psychosocial behaviour and chewing efficiency modified from the validated questionnaires. Clinical evaluation of two mini-dental implant-retained mandibular overdentures showed 100% success rate after 1 year. T-Scan^® demonstrated that maximum occlusal contact force increased continuously. The force distribution; the tooth contact number increased over the period. At 1-year follow-up, overall patient satisfaction was significantly greater than before receiving mini-dental implant treatment (P < .001). Using computerised occlusal analysis, mini-dental implants improve complete denture function significantly in terms of maximum occlusal contact force, tooth contact number without the impairment of force distribution. The oral function of the patients has been enhanced.     

Two-center clinical trial of implant–retained mandibular overdentures versus complete dentures – chewing ability

Abstract This study is a two-center clinical trial with the aim to assess the treatment effects of implant-retained mandibular overdentures versus conventional complete dentures. Treatment had been assigned according to a balanced allocation method. The following criteria were used to enhance the comparability of the treatment groups: age, gender, the edentulous period of the mandible, the number of previously made mandibular dentures, the number of years having worn the present mandibular denture and the symphyseal bone height. 151 patients with severely resorbed mandibles participated in the study, they were treated at two centers. Ninety-one patients received an implant-retained mandibular overdenture (IRO) and 60 patients a conventional complete denture (CD). Since some patients refused the allocated treatment the “Intention To Treat” principle was applied. This implies that patients are evaluated in the originally allocated treatment group regardless of the actual treatment they received. Patient's experiences were evaluated before treatment and I yr after insertion of the new dentures. Results before treatment showed that both treatment groups were comparable: they were dissatisfied with their mandibular denture and they could hardly chew tough or hard foods. One year after insertion of the new dentures the IRO-group was satisfied with their mandibular denture, whereas only one third of the CD-group was satisfied. With respect to the chewing ability the IRO-group scored significantly better than the CD-group (P0.0001).     

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.     

下颌Syncone种植覆盖全口义齿的临床观察

目的评价Ankylos syncone种植系统应用于下颌种植覆盖全口义齿的临床疗效。方法 23例下颌牙列缺失患者,每例植入4枚Ankylos syncone种植体,3个月后行二期手术,制作覆盖义齿。戴牙后3、6、12、18、24个月复查,进行临床和放射学检查。结果 23例患者中无种植体脱落,种植体周未见明显骨吸收,修复后咀嚼功能恢复良好,面容和言语功能有显著改善,患者对治疗效果满意。结论 Ankylos syncone种植系统应用于下颌全口种植覆盖义齿临床疗效良好。     

Fabricating a Mandibular Implant Supported Overdenture with a Suspended Framework

The introduction of implant-supported overdentures as a clinical alternative has improved the quality of life of the edentulous population. Implant-supported overdentures have diminished many of the problems associated with conventional dentures by providing improved retention, stability, function, esthetics and physical and emotional health. Greater support and stability of the implant borne prosthesis is associated with improved bite force and oral function for overdentures when compared to conventional complete dentures. An adequate amount of restorative space is required when fabricating implant-supported overdentures. This space must accommodate a denture base of sufficient dimensions, appropriately positioned denture teeth, and an implant attachment system. Insufficient space may lead to reduced structural integrity of the prosthesis and/or compromised oral function. Typically a mandibular removable prosthesis is more vulnerable to fracture due to its shape and overall dimensions. Incorporation of a metal framework, metal reinforcing mesh, or woven or fiberglass-impregnated mesh have been recommended to improve resistance to denture fracture during function. This article presents a method for fabricating a framework that is specifically and predictably suspended within the denture base in order to decrease fracture susceptibility of implant-supported overdentures.     

Pain and instability during biting with mandibular implant-retained overdentures

We tested in a randomized controlled clinical trial the effect of pain and instability of dentures on bite force with different degrees of mucosal support. The trial involved 3 groups who had received: 1) a new conventional denture (CD-group), 2) an implant-mucosa-borne overdenture on 2 IMZ implants (IMZ-group) or 3) a mainly implant-borne overdenture retained by a transmandibular implant (TMI-group). Fifty-three women and 15 men, mean age 59 years, participated in this study. Bite force measurements were made unilaterally with a transducer and bilaterally with a bite fork. After the measurements, subjects were asked whether or not biting had caused pain or tilting of one of the dentures. Significantly more complete-denture wearers reported pain. They reported more frequent pain in the mandible than in the maxilla (P < 0.001), whereas implant-groups seemed to experience more often pain in the maxilla. On the transducer, maxillary dentures of the CD-group tilted less (P < 0.01) and mandibular dentures more (P < 0.05) compared to the implant-groups. With the bite fork, tilting occurred more often in the incisal-cuspid area than in the molar region (P < 0.001). No effect of pain and tilting was observed on maximum bite force. It appears that oral implants used to stabilize mandibular dentures permit subjects to exert higher bite forces and reduce the pain as otherwise felt in the mandible during maximum biting. Due to this stabilization, pain and instability of the maxillary denture can become the limiting factor for a further increase in bite force.     

Patient satisfaction with different types of implant-retained overdentures in the edentate mandible

The purpose of this study was to determine patient satisfaction with implant supported mandibular overdentures using magnet, bar-clip and ball-socket attachments, and to assess the relation between maximum bite force and patient satisfaction. In a crossover clinical trial, 18 edentulous patients with lower denture complaints received 2 mandibular implants and new lower and upper dentures. The lower denture initially came without any kind of attachment system, but was fitted with one of the attachment types after 3 months. The attachments were changed 3 months thereafter, in random order. A questionnaire concerning denture complaints was given at baseline (with the old denture), after 3 months of functioning with the new denture without attachments and after 3 months of functioning with each of the attachments (within-subject comparison). In addition, at the end of the experiment patients were asked to express their overall satisfaction with their dentures on a visual analogue scale (VAS). Data regarding maximum bite force were obtained from a previous study with the same population. Mandibular implant supported overdenture treatment reduced various denture complaints. The VAS score reflected patients' preference more accurately than scale-scores. Patients strongly preferred bar-clip (10 subjects) and ball-socket attachments (7 subjects) over magnet attachments (1 subject). Patients' preference could not be predicted on the basis of baseline observations. Maximum bite force was not correlated to scale- or VAS scores.