Maxillary Implant-Supported Overdentures: Mechanical Behavior Comparing Individual Axial and Bar Retention Systems. A Cohort Study of Edentulous Patients.

Background and objectives: To compare the medium- to long-term mechanical behavior of overdentures with two different retention systems: overdentures with Locator® axial retention, and vertical insertion overdentures with bar retention, used to rehabilitate edentulous maxillar. Material and Methods: This prospective study assessed patients presenting complete maxillary edentulism, rehabilitated by means of implant-supported overdentures (n = 20), 10 with Locator® axial retention (ODA group) and 10 with overdentures on bars (ODB group). Patients also completed a questionnaire to determine their satisfaction with treatment. Results: The mean follow-up time in both groups was 11.4 years, with follow-up times in both groups ranging from 5 to 14 years. The ODA group suffered mechanical complications such as retention loss, need for nylon retention insert changes, resin fracture, and need for relining. In the ODB group, prosthetic dental wear, screw loosening, and complete prosthetic failure were more common. A total of 19 implants failed (23.8%); of these, 11 were in the ODA group (failure rate = 27.5%) and eight in the ODB group (failure rate = 20%). The patient satisfaction questionnaire obtained a mean score of 7.9 out of 10 in the ODA group, and 9.75 in the ODB group. Conclusions: in rehabilitations of edentulous maxillar by means of implant-supported overdentures, both the systems assessed were shown to be effective in the medium to long term. Patients expressed a high level of satisfaction with the treatments received.

Prosthetic outcome, patient complaints, and nutritional effects on elderly patients with magnet-retained, implant-supported overdentures--a 1-year report.

PURPOSE: To study the changes in treatment outcomes of complete dentures and magnet-retained, implant-supported overdentures in a group of elderly patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this nonrandomized trial, 43 edentulous patients (14 men and 29 women) were fitted with complete dentures followed by implant-supported mandibular overdenture in a sequential model. Treatment outcomes used for analysis included objective assessment of denture quality (Woelfel's index), patient satisfaction, nutritional status, body mass index (BMI), and serum albumin level. The McNemar test was used to determine if significant differences in the Woelfel's index and nutritional status existed at different treatment phases. Repeated measures ANOVA and multiple pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze patient satisfaction. BMI status and serum albumin level at different treatment phases were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test. RESULTS: At the 1-year follow-up, significant improvements were recorded for the objective assessment of denture quality and patient complaints (P < .05). No subject was found to be malnourished at pretreatment and in subsequent treatment phases. BMI and serum albumin level were not significantly different at different treatment phases (P > .05) CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated that in elderly patients with stable health and nutritional status, complete dentures made in a university clinic brought about overall improvement in denture quality and reduction in denture complaint score. Insertion of mandibular implant-supported overdentures further improved the mandibular denture quality and reduced the mandibular denture complaint score. In this group of patients, no improvement in BMI, serum albumin value, and nutritional status were documented.

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 and dissatisfaction before and after 5 years of wearing mandibular two implant overdentures using different attachment systems ; to determine the prognostic relevance of pretreatment complete denture complaints to treatment outcomes. 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 showed significant changes pre- to posttreatment(baseline) in all domains, but these were significant immediately and maintained without further significance for 5 years, other than pain with the overdenture. After 5 years, no significant differences were observed with all the 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: The provision of mandibular two-implant overdentures will, in the majority of patients, significantly enhance levels of patient satisfaction for 5 years, as compared to complete mandibular dentures, regardless of the attachment system. Careful evaluation of pretreatment complaints with conventional dentures can possibly identify patient dissatisfaction with mandibular two-implant overdentures [corrected].

Prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction with two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a 10-year randomized clinical study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction with prosthetic care in two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures, whether implants were splinted with a bar or left with magnets or ball attachments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six completely edentulous patients had two Brånemark implants placed in the mandibular canine area. A randomized procedure allocated patients into three groups of equal size, each with a different attachment system: bars, magnets, or balls. Prosthesis retention and mechanical as well as soft tissue complications were recorded in addition to patient satisfaction. A linear mixed model was fitted with attachment type and time as classification variables and adjusted by Turkey's multiple range test. RESULTS: Ball-retained overdentures showed at year 10 the greatest vertical retention force (1,327 g), followed by bars (1,067 g) and magnets (219 g). In the ball group, need for tightening of abutment screws was the most common mechanical complication; in the magnet and bar groups, respectively, the most common complications were wear and corrosion, and the need for clip activation. Prosthesis stability and chewing comfort for the overdenture were rated significantly lower for the magnet group compared to the ball and bar groups. Prosthesis stability of the maxillary denture was rated significantly lower in the bar group compared to ball and magnet groups. CONCLUSION: The ball group scored best in relation to retention of the overdenture, soft tissue complications, and patient satisfaction at year 10. The bar group scored lower for comfort and stability of the maxillary denture. Magnets offered patients the least comfort.