Aim: To evaluate the satisfaction of completely edentulous patients with a different number of implants to retain removable and support the fixed prosthesis.
Materials and methods: Fifty patients with the single edentulous ridge (maxilla or mandible) were selected for this study and divided equally into five groups. Each group contained 10 patients. Group 1: conventional complete denture (negative control group), group 2: two implants retained overdenture, group 3: three implants retained overdenture, group 4: four implants retained overdenture, group 5: fixed detachable prosthesis with five implants placed between the mental foramen. After one year from completing the treatment, the patients were requested to fill a specially designed questionnaire to assess their overall quality of life and level of satisfaction, both aesthetically and functionally. Comparison of data between groups was performed using the Chi-square tests. The level of statistical significance was considered at p < 0.05.
Results: Patients treated with conventional complete denture were all unsatisfied in their masticatory function, and 80% were also unsatisfied in phonetics, while only 50% of patients were satisfied aesthetically and mentally and 70% were satisfied in social life. The addition of two or more dental implants resulted in 100% satisfaction in the variables tested. There was no statistical difference between the number of implants and suprastructure design regarding patients’ satisfaction. Furthermore, implants retained overdenture and fixed detachable prosthesis design scored the same satisfactory level.
Conclusion: The satisfaction level of the conventional complete denture in the treatment of an edentulous arch can be dramatically improved by adding dental implants and changing the design to an overdenture. Two implants with an overdenture design is a valid treatment option for the edentulous arch as well as three and four implants. Fixed detachable prosthesis did not add any further patient satisfaction when compared to implant retained overdenture.
Clinical significance: Two implants with overdenture to treat edentulous jaw is effective as five implant fixed prosthesis.
Delben JA, Lima J, Cabral T, Assunc WG, Barao VR. Comparison of different designs of implant-retained overdentures and fixed full-arch implant-supported prosthesis on stress distribution in edentulous mandible–A computed tomography-based three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Biomech. 2013; Apr 26;46(7):1312-1320.
Kern JS, Kern T, Wolfart S, Heussen N. A systematic review and meta-analysis of removable and fixed implant- supported prostheses in edentulous jaws: post-loading implant loss. Clin oral imp Research. 2013; Feb 27(2):174-195.
Ali B, Bhavani V. Transition from a fixed implant dental prosthesis to an implant overdenture in an edentulous patient: A clinical report. J Prosthetic Dent. 2014 Sep; 112(3):414-417.
Raghoebar GM. A comparison between 4 and 6 implants in the maxillary posterior region to support an overdenture; 1-year results from a randomized controlled trial. Clin oral imp Research. 2014 May;25(5):560-566.
Preciado A, Del Río J, Lynch CD, Castillo-Oyagüe R.. A new short specific questionnaire (QOLIP-10) for evaluating the oral health-related quality of life of implant-retained overdenture and hybrid prosthesis wearers. J Dent. 2013Sep; 41(9) 753-763
Cakir O, Kazancioglu HO, Celik G, Deger S, Ak G. Evaluation of the Efficacy of Mandibular Conventional and Implant Prostheses in a Group of Turkish Patients: A Quality of Life Study. J Prosthodont. 2014 July; 23(5):390-396.
Lee J, Kim H, Shin S. Number of implants for mandibular implant overdentures: A systematic review. J Adv Prosthodent 2012 Nov; 4(4): 204-209.
Amaral CF, Gomes RS, Rodrigues Garcia RCM, Del Bel Cury AA. Stress distribution of single-implant-retained overdenture reinforced with a framework: A finite element analysis study. J Prosthetic Dent. 2018 May; 119(5):791-796.
Celik G, Uludag B. Effect of the Number of Supporting Implants on Mandibular Photoelastic Models with Different Implant-Retained Overdenture Designs. J Prosthodont. 2014 July; 23(5):374-380.
Roccuzzo M, Bonino F, Gaudioso L, Zwahlen M, Meijer HJ. What is the optimal number of implants for removable reconstructions? A systematic review on implant-supported overdentures. Clin oral implant Research 2012: Oct 23 suppl 6:229-237.
Arat Bilhan S, Baykasoglu C, Bilhan H, Kutay O, Mugan A. Effect of attachment types and number of implants supporting mandibular overdentures on stress distribution: A computed tomography-based 3D finite element analysis. J Biomech. 2015 Jan; 48(1):130-137.
Topkaya T, Solmaz MY. The effect of implant number and position on the stress behavior of mandibular implant retained overdentures: A three-dimensional finite element analysis. J.Biomech. 2015 July;48(10):2102-2109.
Pan YH, Lin TN, Liang CH: Comparison of Patient's Satisfaction with Implant.supported Mandibular Overdentures and Complete Dentures. Biomed J. 2014 May-June;37(3):156-162
Naert I, De Clercq M, Theuniers G, Schepers E. Overdentures supported by osseointegrated fixtures for the edentulous mandible: a 2.5-year report. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 1988 Fall; 3(3):191-196.
Jozefwicz W. The influence of wearing denture on residual ridges: A comparative study. J. Prosthetic Dent. 1970 Aug; 24(2):137-44.
Salama H, Rose LF, Salama M, Betts NJ. Immediate loading of bilaterally splinted titanium root form implants in fixed Prosthodontics. A technique re-examined: Two case reports. Int. J. Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1995 Aug;15 (4):344-361
Thomason JM, Feine J, Exley C, Moynihan P, Müller F, Naert I, Ellis JS, Barclay C, Butterworth C, Scott B, Lynch C, Stewardson D, Smith P, Welfare R, Hyde P, McAndrew R, Fenlon M, Barclay S, Barker D. Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for Edentulous Patients-the York Consensus Statement. Br Dent J. 2009 Aug 22;207(4):185-186.
Sadowsky SJ, Zitzmann NU. Protocols for the Maxillary Implant Overdenture: A Systematic Review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31 Suppl: s182-191.
Locker D, Jolovic A, Clarke M: Assessing the responsiveness of measures of oral health-related quality of life. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2004 Feb; 32(1):10-18.
McMillan AS, Pow EHN, Leung WK, Wong MC, Kwong DL. Oral health related quality of life in southern Chinese following radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Oral Rehabil. 2004 June; 31(6):600-608.
John MT, Koepsell TD, Hujoel P, Miglioretti DL, Le Resche L, Micheelis W. Demographic factors, denture status and oral health-related quality of life. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol.2004 Apr; 32(2):125-132.
Mahrous AI, Aldawash HA, Abadallah MF, Asfour H Abdelwahed A. Implant Supported Distal Extension over Denture Retained by Two Types of Attachments. A Comparative Radiographic Study by Cone Beam Computed Tomography. J Int Oral Health. 2015 May; 7(5):5-10.
Kende D, Szab'o G, Marada G, et al: Impact of prosthetic care on oral health related quality of life. Fogorv Sz. 2008 Apr ; 101(2):49-57. (Article Hungarian).
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 July-Aug; 16(4): 390-396.
Krennmair G, Krainhofner M. Piehslinger E. Implantsupported maxillary overdentures retained with milled bars: maxillary anterior versus maxillary posterior concept. A retrospective study. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2008 Mar-Apr; 23(2):343-352.