Evaluation of masticatory performance and patient satisfaction for conventional and 3D-printed implant overdentures: a randomized crossover study.

BACKGROUND: This crossover clinical study aimed to evaluate and compare masticatory performance and patient satisfaction for patients rehabilitated with conventional heat-cured acrylic resin and 3D-printed mandibular implant overdentures retained with bar attachment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen completely edentulous healthy participants received new conventional dentures. In the mandible, four interforaminal implants were inserted. Following the stage of osseointegration, the bar was constructed in a trapezoidal configuration. Each patient randomly received the following overdentures using a crossover design: (1) conventional heat-cured acrylic resin overdenture and (2) 3D-printed overdenture (developed by scanning of mandibular conventional overdenture). The masticatory performance was assessed by conducting a two-colour mixing ability test at 5, 10, 20, 30, and 50 masticatory cycles. Moreover, the McGill Denture Satisfaction Questionnaire (MDSQ) was employed to assess patient satisfaction. Evaluation was performed after 3 months of using each overdenture. Paired sample t tests were used to compare the masticatory performance and MDSQ scores of patients for both prostheses. RESULTS: No significant difference in masticatory performance was reported between the two types of overdentures. Regarding patient satisfaction, only the esthetic aspect was significantly better for conventionally processed overdentures than for printed overdentures. Insignificant differences were observed regarding other MDSQ items between the two overdentures. CONCLUSION: Within this clinical study, 3D-printed implant overdentures showed promising results in terms of chewing efficiency and patient satisfaction compared to conventionally fabricated implant overdentures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov : NCT06148727.(28/11/2023).

Comparison between Two Design Concepts of Four Implants Placement Used to Support Telescopic Mandibular Overdenture: A Prospective Study of Implant Marginal Bone Height Changes.

AIM: The aim of this present study was to compare two placement designs of four implants used to support a telescopic mandibular overdenture regarding the marginal bone height changes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Each patient received four implants. Two anterior implants were installed vertically in the canine area. Patients were randomized into two groups according to the direction of posterior implants installed in the premolar area. Group I: where the implants were installed vertically parallel to the anterior implants and group II: where the implants were installed 30º distally. The implants were delayed loaded with a telescopic mandibular overdenture. The implant's marginal bone changes were evaluated after 6 and 12 months of overdenture insertion. RESULTS: Mean marginal bone loss of anterior implants showed a statistically significant difference between both groups. The vertically parallel posterior implants in group I showed statistically significant higher marginal bone loss than posterior implants in group II after follow-up periods. The 30º distally tilted posterior implants maintained the implant marginal bone after 12 months of overdenture insertion. CONCLUSION: Rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible with telescopic overdenture supported by four parallel implants is a promising successful treatment option. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Tilting the posterior implants will improve the anteroposterior spread that in turn increases the support and the survival rate of the implants. Also, using this technique gives us an opportunity to use fewer implants.