Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research

Patient Satisfaction with Maxillary 3-Implant Overdentures Using Different Attachment Systems Opposing Mandibular 2-Implant Overdentures

Mohammed I. Al-Zubeidi BDS, MDS

Prosthodontist, Private Practice, Melbourne, Australia & Graduate Student of Prosthodontics, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;

Search for more papers by this author

Nabeel H.M. Alsabeeha DMD, MSc, MFDS RCPS, PhD,

Nabeel H.M. Alsabeeha DMD, MSc, MFDS RCPS, PhD

Prosthodontist, Ministry of Health, United Arab Emirates & PhD student, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;

Search for more papers by this author

W. Murray Thomson BDS, MComDent, MA, PhD,

W. Murray Thomson BDS, MComDent, MA, PhD

Professor of Public Dental Health and Epidemiology, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;

Search for more papers by this author

Alan G.T. Payne BDS, MDent, DDSc FCD (SA),

Corresponding Author

Alan G.T. Payne BDS, MDent, DDSc FCD (SA)

associate professor of Prosthodontics, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

Dr. Alan G.T. Payne, Dental Services, Whangarei, New Zealand; e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author

Mohammed I. Al-Zubeidi BDS, MDS,

Mohammed I. Al-Zubeidi BDS, MDS

Search for more papers by this author

Nabeel H.M. Alsabeeha DMD, MSc, MFDS RCPS, PhD,

Nabeel H.M. Alsabeeha DMD, MSc, MFDS RCPS, PhD

Search for more papers by this author

W. Murray Thomson BDS, MComDent, MA, PhD,

W. Murray Thomson BDS, MComDent, MA, PhD

Professor of Public Dental Health and Epidemiology, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;

Search for more papers by this author

Alan G.T. Payne BDS, MDent, DDSc FCD (SA),

Corresponding Author

Alan G.T. Payne BDS, MDent, DDSc FCD (SA)

associate professor of Prosthodontics, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

Dr. Alan G.T. Payne, Dental Services, Whangarei, New Zealand; e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author

First published: 17 March 2011

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00332.x

Citations: 24

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

ABSTRACT

Background: Patient-based outcomes with maxillary overdentures on a minimum number of implants, opposing mandibular 2-implant overdentures are not evident in the literature.

Purpose: 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.

Materials and Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusions: The provision of maxillary 3-implant overdentures to oppose mandibular 2-implant overdentures significantly improve levels of patient satisfaction compared with conventional maxillary dentures.

REFERENCES

1 Henry PJ. A review of guidelines for implant rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87: 281–288.
10.1067/mpr.2002.122775
PubMed Google Scholar
2 Chan MF, Narhi TO, de Baat C, Kalk W. Treatment of the atrophic edentulous maxilla with implant-supported overdentures: a review of the literature. Int J Prosthodont 1998; 11: 7–15.
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3 Mericske-Stern R, Oetterli M, Kiener P, Mericske E. A follow-up study of maxillary implants supporting an overdenture: clinical and radiographic results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002; 17: 678–686.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4 Naert I, Gizani S, van Steenberghe D. Rigidly splinted implants in the resorbed maxilla to retain a hinging overdenture: a series of clinical reports for up to 4 years. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 79: 156–164.
10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70210-0
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5 Zitzmann NU, Marinello CP. Treatment outcomes of fixed or removable implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous maxilla. Part I: patients' assessments. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 83: 424–433.
10.1016/S0022-3913(00)70037-0
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6 Heydecke G, Boudrias P, Awad MA, De Albuquerque RF, Lund JP, Feine JS. Within-subject comparisons of maxillary fixed and removable implant prostheses: patient satisfaction and choice of prosthesis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003; 14: 125–130.
10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.140117.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7 Hooghe M, Naert I. Implant supported overdentures – the Leuven experience. J Dent 1997; 25 (Suppl 1): S25–S32.
10.1016/S0300-5712(97)87697-X
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8 Mericske-Stern R. Treatment outcomes with implant-supported overdentures: clinical considerations. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 79: 66–73.
10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70196-9
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 Mericske-Stern R. Prosthodontic management of maxillary and mandibular overdentures. In: JS Feine, GE Carlsson, eds. Implant overdentures: the standard of care for edentulous patients. Chicago, IL: Quintessence Publishing Co, 2003: 83–98.
Web of Science® Google Scholar
10 Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, et al. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Montreal, Quebec, May 24–25, 2002. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002; 17: 601–602.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
11 Zarb GA. The edentulous milieu. J Prosthet Dent 1983; 49: 825–831.
10.1016/0022-3913(83)90358-X
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12 Jacobson T, Krol A. A contemporary review of the factors involved in complete dentures. Part 3: support. J Prosthet Dent 1983; 49: 306–313.
10.1016/0022-3913(83)90267-6
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13 Kahnberg KE, Nystrom E, Bartholdsson L. Combined use of bone grafts and Branemark fixtures in the treatment of severely resorbed maxillae. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989; 4: 297–304.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
14 Keller EE, Van Roekel NB, Desjardins RP, Tolman DE. Prosthetic-surgical reconstruction of the severely resorbed maxilla with iliac bone grafting and tissue-integrated prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987; 2: 155–165.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
15 Raghoebar GM, Timmenga NM, Reintsema H, Stegenga B, Vissink A. Maxillary bone grafting for insertion of endosseous implants: results after 12–124 months. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001; 12: 279–286.
10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012003279.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16 Payne AG, Tawse-Smith A, Thomson WM, Duncan WD, Kumara R. One-stage surgery and early loading of three implants for maxillary overdentures: a 1-year report. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2004; 6: 61–74.
10.1111/j.1708-8208.2004.tb00028.x
PubMed Google Scholar
17 Allen F, Locker D. A modified short version of the oral health impact profile for assessing health-related quality of life in edentulous adults. Int J Prosthodont 2002; 15: 446–450.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18 Slade GD. Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1997; 25: 284–290.
10.1111/j.1600-0528.1997.tb00941.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19 Slade GD, Spencer AJ. Development and evaluation of the Oral Health Impact Profile. Community Dent Health 1994; 11: 3–11.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
20 Awad MA, Locker D, Korner-Bitensky N, Feine JS. Measuring the effect of intra-oral implant rehabilitation on health-related quality of life in a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Dent Res 2000; 79: 1659–1663.
10.1177/00220345000790090401
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21 Awad MA, Lund JP, Dufresne E, Feine JS. Comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-retained overdentures and conventional dentures among middle-aged edentulous patients: satisfaction and functional assessment. Int J Prosthodont 2003; 16: 117–122.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22 Walton JN, MacEntee MI. Problems with prostheses on implants: a retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 71: 283–288.
10.1016/0022-3913(94)90468-5
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23 Awad MA, Lund JP, Shapiro SH, et al. Oral health status and treatment satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures: a randomized clinical trial in a senior population. Int J Prosthodont 2003; 16: 390–396.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24 Feine JS, Dufresne E, Boudrias P, Lund JP. Outcome assessment of implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 79: 575–579.
10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70179-9
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
25 Kaptein ML, Hoogstraten J, de Putter C, de Lange GL, Blijdorp PA. Dental implants in the atrophic maxilla: measurements of patients' satisfaction and treatment experience. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998; 9: 321–326.
10.1034/j.1600-0501.1998.090505.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26 Smedberg JI, Lothigius E, Bodin I, Frykholm A, Nilner K. A clinical and radiological two-year follow-up study of maxillary overdentures on osseointegrated implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1993; 4: 39–46.
10.1034/j.1600-0501.1993.040106.x
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
27 de Albuquerque RF, Lund JP, Tang L, et al. Within-subject comparison of maxillary long-bar implant-retained prostheses with and without palatal coverage: patient-based outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11: 555–565.
10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011006555.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28 Heydecke G, McFarland DH, Feine JS, Lund JP. Speech with maxillary implant prostheses: ratings of articulation. J Dent Res 2004; 83: 236–240.
10.1177/154405910408300310
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
29 Kronstrom M, Widbom C, Soderfeldt B. Patient evaluation after treatment with maxillary implant-supported overdentures. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2006; 8: 39–43.
10.2310/j.6480.2005.00029.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume14, Issues1

Special Issue:Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Prosthodontic Supplement 2012: Contemporary Insight Into Implant Prosthodontics

May 2012

Pages e11-e19

Patient Satisfaction with Maxillary 3-Implant Overdentures Using Different Attachment Systems Opposing Mandibular 2-Implant Overdentures

ABSTRACT

REFERENCES

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley