Patient Satisfaction and Prosthetic Complications of Maxillary Implant Overdentures Opposing Mandibular Implant Overdentures with Bar, Telescopic, and Stud Attachments: A 1-Year Prospective Trial.
Nancy Hamdy Fayek, Ahmed Ibrahim Mahrous, Ahmed Abd Elwahed Shaaban, Moustafa Abdou ELsyad
{"title":"Patient Satisfaction and Prosthetic Complications of Maxillary Implant Overdentures Opposing Mandibular Implant Overdentures with Bar, Telescopic, and Stud Attachments: A 1-Year Prospective Trial.","authors":"Nancy Hamdy Fayek, Ahmed Ibrahim Mahrous, Ahmed Abd Elwahed Shaaban, Moustafa Abdou ELsyad","doi":"10.11607/jomi.9610","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate patient satisfaction and prosthetic complications of maxillary conventional dentures and implant overdentures opposing mandibular implant overdentures with different attachments.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 60 patients with maxillary conventional dentures (maxillary CD) and mandibular two-implant overdentures received four implants in the maxilla. The implants were connected to the maxillary overdentures with a stud attachment (maxillary OD). The participants were classified into three groups according to the type of mandibular overdenture attachment: bar overdentures (BOD, n = 20), resilient telescopic overdentures (TOD, n = 20), and resilient stud/Locator overdentures (LOD, n = 20). Patient satisfaction (using a visual analog scale [VAS] and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL)] and prosthetic/soft tissue complications were evaluated for maxillary CD and maxillary OD after 1 year of insertion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>LOD showed higher VAS and oral health impact profile (OHIP-14) scores with maxillary CD and maxillary OD than BOD and TOD except for ease of chewing (VAS) and satisfactory diet (OHIP-7). For maxillary CD, TOD showed a significantly higher frequency of prosthetic and soft tissue complications than BOD and LOD. For all groups, maxillary OD showed significantly higher patient satisfaction regarding VAS and OHIP-14 scores, and lower prosthetic and soft tissue complications than the maxillary CD.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Locator-retained maxillary overdentures opposing mandibular implant overdentures improved patient satisfaction and reduced prosthetic complications compared to conventional maxillary dentures. Such overdentures are best opposed by Locator-retained mandibular overdentures, as they increase patient satisfaction and reduce prosthetic and soft tissue complications compared to the bar and telescopic attachments.</p>","PeriodicalId":50298,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants","volume":"37 5","pages":"1044-1054"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.9610","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate patient satisfaction and prosthetic complications of maxillary conventional dentures and implant overdentures opposing mandibular implant overdentures with different attachments.
Materials and methods: A total of 60 patients with maxillary conventional dentures (maxillary CD) and mandibular two-implant overdentures received four implants in the maxilla. The implants were connected to the maxillary overdentures with a stud attachment (maxillary OD). The participants were classified into three groups according to the type of mandibular overdenture attachment: bar overdentures (BOD, n = 20), resilient telescopic overdentures (TOD, n = 20), and resilient stud/Locator overdentures (LOD, n = 20). Patient satisfaction (using a visual analog scale [VAS] and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL)] and prosthetic/soft tissue complications were evaluated for maxillary CD and maxillary OD after 1 year of insertion.
Results: LOD showed higher VAS and oral health impact profile (OHIP-14) scores with maxillary CD and maxillary OD than BOD and TOD except for ease of chewing (VAS) and satisfactory diet (OHIP-7). For maxillary CD, TOD showed a significantly higher frequency of prosthetic and soft tissue complications than BOD and LOD. For all groups, maxillary OD showed significantly higher patient satisfaction regarding VAS and OHIP-14 scores, and lower prosthetic and soft tissue complications than the maxillary CD.
Conclusion: Locator-retained maxillary overdentures opposing mandibular implant overdentures improved patient satisfaction and reduced prosthetic complications compared to conventional maxillary dentures. Such overdentures are best opposed by Locator-retained mandibular overdentures, as they increase patient satisfaction and reduce prosthetic and soft tissue complications compared to the bar and telescopic attachments.
目的:比较上颌常规义齿和种植覆盖义齿与下颌不同附着体种植覆盖义齿的患者满意度和修复并发症。材料与方法:对60例上颌常规义齿(上颌CD)和下颌双种植覆盖义齿患者在上颌种植4颗义齿。种植体与上颌覆盖义齿用螺柱连接(上颌外径)。根据下颌覆盖义齿附着体的类型将受试者分为3组:棒状覆盖义齿(BOD, n = 20)、弹性套筒覆盖义齿(TOD, n = 20)和弹性螺柱/定位器覆盖义齿(LOD, n = 20)。患者满意度(使用视觉模拟量表[VAS]和口腔健康相关生活质量(OHRQoL))以及假体/软组织并发症在植入1年后对上颌CD和上颌OD进行评估。结果:上颌CD和上颌OD的VAS和口腔健康影响谱(OHIP-14)评分高于BOD和TOD，但咀嚼难易程度(VAS)和饮食满意程度(OHIP-7)除外。对于上颌CD, TOD出现假体和软组织并发症的频率明显高于BOD和LOD。在所有组中，上颌OD组患者对VAS和o髋关节-14评分的满意度均显著高于上颌cd组，假体和软组织并发症均低于上颌cd组。结论:定位器保留上颌覆盖义齿与下颌种植覆盖义齿相比，提高了患者满意度，减少了假体并发症。这种覆盖义齿最好使用定位器保留的下颌覆盖义齿，因为与棒状和套筒状附着体相比，它们增加了患者的满意度，减少了义肢和软组织并发症。
期刊介绍：
Edited by Steven E. Eckert, DDS, MS ISSN (Print): 0882-2786
ISSN (Online): 1942-4434
This highly regarded, often-cited journal integrates clinical and scientific data to improve methods and results of oral and maxillofacial implant therapy. It presents pioneering research, technology, clinical applications, reviews of the literature, seminal studies, emerging technology, position papers, and consensus studies, as well as the many clinical and therapeutic innovations that ensue as a result of these efforts. The editorial board is composed of recognized opinion leaders in their respective areas of expertise and reflects the international reach of the journal. Under their leadership, JOMI maintains its strong scientific integrity while expanding its influence within the field of implant dentistry. JOMI’s popular regular feature "Thematic Abstract Review" presents a review of abstracts of recently published articles on a specific topical area of interest each issue.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
