The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Evaluation of a Series of Overdentures Made in a Higher Education Dental Institution in Southern Brazil

Caroline Dillenburg, Letícia C Dogenski, Tainara E Kopper, André W Rosa, Dimas JR Neto, Moisés Z Cardoso, Julia Zandoná, Rejane EL Pedro, Micheline S Trentin, Maria SS Linden, João P de Carli

Keywords : Dental implants, Edentulous arcade, Implants, Overdenture, Prostheses

Citation Information : Dillenburg C, Dogenski LC, Kopper TE, Rosa AW, Neto DJ, Cardoso MZ, Zandoná J, Pedro RE, Trentin MS, Linden MS, Carli JP. Evaluation of a Series of Overdentures Made in a Higher Education Dental Institution in Southern Brazil. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (7):778-783.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3149

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 28-09-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aim and objective: This study aimed to evaluate the epidemiological profile, oral health self-perception index, and level of satisfaction of users of complete implant-supported overdentures that had been used for at least 1 year and were made at the School of Dentistry of the University of Passo Fundo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (FO/UPF), between 2014 and 2019. Materials and methods: The sample consisted of 30 patients with overdentures, who were selected from the dental records filed at the institution. Data on general health and the dental implants involved (brand, type of prosthetic connection, number of implants, and additional overdenture retention system) were collected from the medical records. The 30 patients were invited to answer the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) and visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaires, and due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, it was possible to contact 15 patients. Results: Most of the prostheses studied were mandibular overdentures, and 66.66% of the cases were retained by the O-ring system. As for the oral health self-perception of the individuals, it was concluded that male patients had a lower mean overall score (p = 0.047) and functional domain (p = 0.042) in the OHIP-14. The number of implants and the installation arch interfered with functional domain and psychological capacity (p <0.05). The VAS showed that women have greater esthetic satisfaction with prostheses (p = 0.048) and that the bar-clip retention system is more satisfactory than the O-ring (p = 0.017). Conclusion: Despite the limitations of overdentures, it was noted that, when properly indicated, they are a viable option for oral rehabilitation on implants. Clinical significance: Oral rehabilitation well-indicated with overdentures, especially those retained by the bar-clip system, results in an improvement in the patients’ quality of life.

  1. Roberto LL, Crespo TS, Monteiro-Junior RS, et al. Sociodemographic determinants of edentulism in the elderly population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gerodontology 2019;36(4):325–337. DOI: 10.1111/ger.12430.
  2. Oliveira EJP, Alves LC, Santos JLF, et al. Edentulism and all-cause mortality among Brazilian older adults: 11-years follow-up. Braz Oral Res 2020;34:e046. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2020.vol34.0046.
  3. Gupta A, Felton DA, Jemt T, et al. Rehabilitation of edentulism and mortality: a systematic review. J Prosthodont 2019;28(5):526–535. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12792.
  4. Kutkut A, Bertoli E, Frazer R, et al. A systematic review of studies comparing conventional complete denture and implant retained overdenture. J Prosthodont Res 2018;62(1):1–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor. 2017.06.004.
  5. Kern JS, Kern T, Wolfart S, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of removable and fixed implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws: post-loading implant loss. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27(2):174–195. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12531.
  6. Nogueira TE, Dias DR, Leles CR. Mandibular complete denture versus single-implant overdenture: a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes. J Oral Rehabil 2017;44(12):1004–1016. DOI: 10.1111/joor.12550.
  7. El-Wegoud MA, Fayyad A, Kaddah A, et al. Bar versus ball attachments for implant-supported overdentures in complete edentulism: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018;20(2):243–250. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12551.
  8. Di Francesco F, De Marco G, Gironi Carnevale UA, et al. The number of implants required to support a maxillary overdenture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont Res 2019;63(1):15–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2018.08.006.
  9. Guenin C, Martín-Cabezas R. How many implants are necessary to stabilise an implant-supported maxillary overdenture? Evid Based Dent 2020;21(1):28–29. DOI: 10.1038/s41432-020-0077-7.
  10. Leão RS, Moraes SLD, Vasconcelos BCE, et al. Splinted and unsplinted overdenture attachment systems: a systematic review andmeta-analysis. J Oral Rehabil 2018;45(8):647–656. DOI: 10.1111/joor.12651.
  11. Turker N, Buyukkaplan US. Effects of overdenture attachment systems with different working principles on stress transmission: a three-dimensional finite element study. J Adv Prosthodont 2020;12(6):351–360. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2020.12.6.351.
  12. Zhang L, Lyu C, Shang Z, et al. Quality of life of implant-supported overdenture and conventional complete denture in restoring the edentulous mandible: a systematic review. Implant Dent 2017;26(6):945–950. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000668.
  13. Slade GD, Spencer AJ. Development and evaluation of the oral health impact profile. Community Dental Health 1994;11(1):3–11. PMID: 8193981.
  14. Cardoso M, Balducci I, Telles Dde M, et al. Edentulism in Brazil: trends, projections and expectations until 2040. Cien Saude Colet 2016;21(4):1239–1246. DOI: 10.1590/1413-81232015214.13672015.
  15. Rignon-Bret C, Wulfman C, Hadida A, et al. Immediate loading of two unsplinted implants in edentulous patients with mandibular overdentures: a 10-year retrospective review of patients from a previously conducted 1-year cohort study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019;34(1):169–178. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.6931.
  16. Kaufmann R, Friedli M, Hug S, et al. Removable dentures with implant support in strategic positions followed for up to 8 years. Int J Prosthodont 2009;22(3):233–241. PMID: 19548404.
  17. Preciado A, Del Río J, Suárez-García MJ, et al. Differences in impact of patient and prosthetic characteristics on oral health-related quality of life among implant-retained overdenture wearers. J Dent 2012;40(10):857–865. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.07.006.
  18. Kronström M, Widbom C, Soderfeldt B. Patient evaluation after treatment with maxillary implant-supported overdentures. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2006;8(1):39–43. DOI: 10.2310/j.6480.2005.00029.x.
  19. Karbach J, Hartmann S, Jahn-Eimermacher A, et al. Oral health-related quality of life in edentulous patients with two- vs four-locator-retained mandibular overdentures: a prospective, randomized, crossover study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015;30(5):1143–1148. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3987.
  20. Cune M, van Kampen F, van der Bilt A, et al. Patient satisfaction and preference with magnet, bar-clip, and ball-socket retained mandibular implant overdentures: a cross-over clinical trial. Int J Prosthodont 2005;18(2):99–105. PMID: 15889656.
  21. Gonçalves F, Campestrini VLL, Rigo-Rodrigues MA, et al. Effect of the attachment system on the biomechanical and clinical performance of overdentures: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123(4): 589–594. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.03.024.
  22. Dudley J. The 2-implant maxillary overdenture: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112(2):104–107. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.06.025.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.