+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Patient satisfaction with maxillary 3-implant overdentures using different attachment systems opposing mandibular 2-implant overdentures



Patient satisfaction with maxillary 3-implant overdentures using different attachment systems opposing mandibular 2-implant overdentures



Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 14(Suppl. 1): E11



Patient-based outcomes with maxillary overdentures on a minimum number of implants, opposing mandibular 2-implant overdentures are not evident in the literature. To evaluate patient's satisfaction with maxillary 3-implant overdentures, opposing mandibular 2-implant overdentures, using two different attachment systems over the first 2 years of service. Forty participants wearing mandibular 2-implant overdentures for 3 years were randomly allocated to one of two similar implant system groups to receive maxillary 3-implant overdentures. Twenty participants were allocated to splinted and unsplinted attachment system treatment groups for each system. Patient satisfaction with pre-treatment complete maxillary dentures, with maxillary 3-implant overdentures at baseline and annually for 2 years, was measured using visual analogue scale questionnaires and the oral health impact profiles. Palatal coverage of the maxillary overdentures was reduced at the first annual recall. Data showed significant improvement in pain reduction, comfort, stability, and function variables of the visual analogue scale after treatment. Analysis by prosthodontic design using visual analogue scale showed no significant difference. The total oral health impact profile-14 scores after treatment for all participants, regardless of prosthodontic design, were significantly lower (more satisfied). The overall oral health impact profile-20E score at baseline was significantly higher (more satisfied) compared with pre-treatment conventional maxillary dentures. No significant changes were observed in the first or second years compared with baseline results. Twenty-two participants (84.6%) preferred reduced palatal coverage, regardless of prosthodontic design, after 1 year. Twenty participants (76.9%) still preferred reduced palatal coverage at the end of the second year. The provision of maxillary 3-implant overdentures to oppose mandibular 2-implant overdentures significantly improve levels of patient satisfaction compared with conventional maxillary dentures.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 054890300

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 21414137

DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00332.x


Related references

Maxillary Three-Implant Overdentures Opposing Mandibular Two-Implant Overdentures: 10-Year Surgical Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 18(3): 527-544, 2016

Maxillary Three-Implant Overdentures Opposing Mandibular Two-Implant Overdentures: 10-Year Prosthodontic Outcomes. International Journal of Prosthodontics 29(4): 327-336, 2016

Patient satisfaction and dissatisfaction with mandibular two-implant overdentures using different attachment systems: 5-year outcomes. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 14(5): 696-707, 2012

Implant overdentures: bar versus ball attachment for mandibular implant supported overdentures--a randomised clinical trial. Sadj 59(1): 28-29, 2004

Effect of Attachment Type on Denture Strain in Maxillary Implant Overdentures: Part 2. Palateless Overdentures. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 33(1): 80-86, 2018

Patient satisfaction versus retention of implant overdentures with two attachment systems: A randomized trial. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 21(1): 21-31, 2019

Two-Implant-Supported Mandibular Overdentures: Do Clinical Denture Quality and Inter-Implant Distance Affect Patient Satisfaction?. International Journal of Prosthodontics 30(6): 519–525, 2017

Mandibular single-implant overdentures: preliminary results of a randomised-control trial on early loading with different implant diameters and attachment systems. Clinical Oral Implants Research 22(3): 330-337, 2011

Finite element analysis and clinical complications in mandibular implant-overdentures opposing maxillary dentures. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials 75: 97-104, 2017

Effect of Implant Height Differences on Different Attachment Types and Peri-Implant Bone in Mandibular Two-Implant Overdentures: 3D Finite Element Study. Journal of Oral Implantology 41(3): E50, 2015

Effect of implant position, angulation, and attachment height on peri-implant bone stress associated with mandibular two-implant overdentures: a finite element analysis. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 27(5): E69, 2012

Biting Force and Muscle Activity in Implant-Supported Single Mandibular Overdentures Opposing Fixed Maxillary Dentition. Implant Dentistry 25(2): 199-203, 2016

Attachment systems for mandibular implant overdentures: a systematic review. Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics 4(4): 197-203, 2012

Analysis of patient's satisfaction with the mandibular implant-borne overdentures. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 12(3): 161-163, 2003

A comparison of three different attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: one-year report. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 12(3): 209-218, 2010