Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.46(6) > 1034558

TOOLS
Lee, Kim, Shin, and Lee: A COMPARISON OF THE MASTICATORY FUNCTION BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF IMPLANT SUPPORTED PROSTHESES AND COMPLETE DENTURE FOR FULLY EDENTULOUS PATIENTS
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2008;46(6):591-601.

Published online: 18 December 2008

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2008.46.6.591

A COMPARISON OF THE MASTICATORY FUNCTION BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF IMPLANT SUPPORTED PROSTHESES AND COMPLETE DENTURE FOR FULLY EDENTULOUS PATIENTS

Jae-Hoon Lee, DDS, MS, PhD1, Woo Hyun Kim, DDS2, Rie-Hye Shin, DDS, MS, PhD3, Keun Woo Lee, DDS, MS, PhD4, ∗

1Assistant professor, Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry at Yonsei University, Korea

2Graduate student, Department of dental biomaterials and bioengineering, College of Dentistry at Yonsei University, Korea

3Private practice, 8-7 Hibarigaoka Kashiwa, Chiba 277-0088, Japan

4Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry at Yonsei University, Korea

Corresponding Author: Keun Woo Lee Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry at Yonsei University 134 Shinchondong, Seodaemoongu, Seoul, 120-752, Korea: e-mail, jaehoon115@yuhs.ac

Received 22 October 200826 November 2008       Accepted 28 November 2008

Copyright © 2008 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The improvement in oral function and comfort from the dental implant appears to depend on the particular type of implant support used with the denture. The number and positioning of implants have an influence on the force transfer and subsequent stress distribution around implants. Nevertheless, a quantitative comparison has not been made between the types of implant prosthesis used with different materials compared to conventional complete denture.

PURPOSE

The objective of this study is to assess the masticatory performance, bite force and impact of two different type of implant supported prostheses on oral health-related quality of life compared to conventional complete denture with GOHAI, validated oral-specific health status measures, the sieving method, and the Prescale Dental System.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From the years 1999 to 2006, a total of 30 completely edentulous patients in a single arch were selected from the Yonsei University Dental Hospital, Department of Prosthodontics and Implant Clinic in Seoul, S. Korea. Patients were divided into 3 groups of 10 each. Group HR was restored with fixed-detachable hybrid prostheses with resin teeth. Group FP had fixed dentures with porcelain teeth while Group CD had a complete denture. The masticatory performance was compared between 3 groups.

RESULTS

The results showed a significant improvement in oral health-related quality of life with dental implants compared to a conventional denture in GOHAI comparison. Overall, implant prostheses showed a higher masticatory performance (S50) and maximum bite force compared with conventional dentures (P < .05) but no differences between different implant supported prostheses (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Within the limitation of this study, the numbers of implant and material of implant prostheses does not appear to impact patient satisfaction, masticatory performance or bite force.

Keywords: Fully edentulous patient, Masticatory performance, Maximum bite force, Patient satisfaction

REFERENCES

1.Lundqvist S., Carlsson GE. Maxillary fixed prostheses on osseointegrated dental implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1983. 50:262–70.
crossref
2.Zarb GA., Symington JM. Osseointegrated dental implants: preliminary report on a replication study. J Prosthet Dent. 1983. 50:271–6.
crossref
3.Hobkirk JA., Havthoulas TK. The influence of mandibular deformation, implant numbers, and loading position on detected forces in abutments supporting fixed implant superstructures. J Prosthet Dent. 1998. 80:169–74.
crossref
4.Korioth TW., Chew CB., Chung DH. Effect of implant number on transverse bending moments during simulated unilateral loading of mandibular fixed-detachable prostheses. J Oral Implantol. 1998. 24:93–6.
crossref
5.Duyck J., Van Oosterwyck H., Vander Sloten J., De Cooman M., Puers R., Naert I. Magnitude and distribution of occlusal forces on oral implants supporting fixed prostheses: an in vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000. 11:465–75.
6.Osier JF. Biomechanical load analysis of cantilevered implant systems. J Oral Implantol. 1991. 17:40–7.
7.Skalak R. Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 1983. 49:843–8.
crossref
8.Zarb GA., Zarb FL. Tissue-integrated prostheses: osseointe-gration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence;1985. p. 241–82.
9.Stegaroiu R., Kusakari H., Nishiyama S., Miyakawa O. Influence of prosthesis material on stress distribution in bone and implant: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998. 13:781–90.
10.Zarb GA., Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: the Toronto study. Part III: Problems and complications encountered. J Prosthet Dent. 1990. 64:185–94.
crossref
11.Walton JN., MacEntee MI. Problems with prostheses on implant; retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent. 1994. 71:283–8.
12.Brunski JB., Puleo DA., Nanci A. Biomaterials and biomechanics of oral and maxillofacial implants: current status and future developments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000. 15:15–46.
13.Kapur KK., Soman S. The effect of denture factors on masticatory performance. II. Influence of the polished surface contour of denture base. J Prosthet Dent. 1965. 15:231–40.
14.Atchison KA., Dolan TA. Development of the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index. J Dent Educ. 1990. 54:680–7.
crossref
15.van der Bilt A., van der Glas HW., Mowlana F., Heath MR. A comparison between sieving and optical scanning for the determination of particle size distributions obtained by mastication in man. Arch Oral Biol. 1993. 38:159–62.
crossref
16.Goll GE. Production of accurately fitting full-arch implant frameworks: Part I-Clinical procedures. J Prosthet Dent. 1991. 66:377–84.
crossref
17.Kan JY., Rungcharassaeng K., Bohsali K., Goodacre CJ., Lang BR. Clinical methods for evaluating implant framework fit. J Prosthet Dent. 1999. 81:7–13.
crossref
18.Wong MC., Liu JK., Lo EC. Translation and validation of the Chinese version of GOHAI. J Public Health Dent. 2002. 62:78–83.
crossref
19.Naito M., Suzukamo Y., Nakayama T., Hamajima N., Fukuhara S. Linguistic adaptation and validation of the General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) in an elderly Japanese population. J Public Health Dent. 2006. 66:273–5.
crossref
20.Tubert-Jeannin S., Riordan PJ., Morel-Papernot A., Porcheray S., Saby-Collet S. Validation of an oral health quality of life index (GOHAI) in France. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2003. 31:275–84.
crossref
21.Ha ¨ gglin C., Berggren U., Lundgren J. A Swedish version of the GOHAI index. Psychometric properties and validation. Swed Dent J. 2005. 29:113–24.
22.Edlund J., Lamm CJ. Masticatory efficiency. J Oral Rehabil. 1980. 7:123–30.
crossref
23.Lucas PW., Luke DA. Methods for analysing the breakdown of food in human mastication. Arch Oral Biol. 1983. 28:813–9.
crossref
24.Olthoff LW., van der Bilt A., Bosman F., Kleizen HH. Distribution of particle sizes in food comminuted by human mastication. Arch Oral Biol. 1984. 29:899–903.
crossref
25.Miura H., Watanabe S., Isogai E., Miura K. Comparison of maximum bite force and dentate status between healthy and frail elderly persons. J Oral Rehabil. 2001. 28:592–5.
crossref

Fig. 1.
Test food made with impregum F (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany).
jkap-46-591f1.tif
Fig. 2.
A plot of log X against log Y of the data given in Table II.
jkap-46-591f2.tif
Fig. 3.
Dental Prescale recording bite film (Fuji film Co., Tokyo, Japan).
jkap-46-591f3.tif
Fig. 4.
Comparison between groups with GOHAI questions in 3 dimensions.
jkap-46-591f4.tif
Table I.
Summary of patient data
Group Patient number Sex Age Number of implant Prosthesis location Years after treatment
HR 1 M 68 6 Mandible 2 yr 5 mo
2 M 52 6 Mandible 1 yr 6 mo
3 F 72 6 Mandible 2 yr 4 mo
4 F 53 6 Mandible 2 yr 1 mo
5 M 54 6 Mandible 2 yr 9 mo
6 F 62 6 Mandible 3 yr 3 mo
7 M 55 6 Maxillae 4 yr 3 mo
8 M 69 6 Mandible 3 yr 6 mo
9 F 43 6 Mandible 2 yr 2 mo
10 M 66 6 Maxillae 3 yr 1 mo
FP 1 M 70 8 Mandible 1 yr 1 mo
2 F 55 8 Mandible 3 yr 4 mo
3 M 68 8 Mandible 3 yr 3 mo
4 M 51 8 Maxillae 3 yr 11 mo
5 F 57 8 Maxillae 3 yr 3 mo
6 M 46 10 Maxillae 1 yr 10 mo
7 M 68 8 Mandible 3 yr 6 mo
8 M 57 8 Mandible 2 yr 2 mo
9 F 42 8 Mandible 2 yr 8 mo
10 F 63 9 Maxillae 3 yr 2 mo
CD 1 M 73 N/A Maxillae 5 yr 3 mo
2 F 63 N/A Maxillae 3 yr 2 mo
3 F 72 N/A Maxillae 1 yr 2 mo
4 M 50 N/A Maxillae 2 yr 5 mo
5 F 75 N/A Maxillae 2 yr 6 mo
6 M 61 N/A Maxillae 4 yr 3 mo
7 M 54 N/A Maxillae 3 yr 2 mo
8 M 71 N/A Maxillae 3 yr 5 mo
9 M 59 N/A Maxillae 2 yr 6 mo
10 F 73 N/A Maxillae 1 yr 2 mo
Table II.
The treatment of data from 1 food sample
x Log x Yv Yv% Yc% Yr Y Log Y
2 0.69 328.78 88.06 11.93 88.06 -0.13 -2.06
1.8 0.59 7.75 2.08 9.85 90.14 -0.1 -2.27
1.6 0.47 6.4 1.71 8.14 91.85 -0.08 -2.46
1.4 0.34 11.1 2.97 5.17 94.83 -0.05 -2.94
1.2 0.18 5.02 1.34 3.83 96.17 -0.04 -3.24
1 0 3.8 1.02 2.81 97.19 -0.03 -3.56
0.8 -0.22 3.95 1.06 1.75 98.25 -0.02 -4.04
0.6 -0.51 2.89 0.77 0.98 99.02 -0.01 -4.62
Table III.
Comparison of frequency score of individual GOHAI Items
Question items Group HR Group FP Group CD
1. How often did you limit the kinds or amounts of food you eat because of problems with your teeth or dentures? 3.9 4.2 2.5
2. How often did you have trouble biting or chewing different kinds of food, such as firm meat or apples? 3.8 3.9 2.5
3. How often were you able to swallow comfortably? 4.3 4.4 4
4. How often have your teeth or dentures prevented you from speaking the way you wanted? 4.2 4.1 3.9
5. How often were you able to eat anything without feeling discomfort? 4.6 4.7 4.4
6. How often did you limit contacts with people because of the condition of your teeth or dentures? 4.5 4.1 3
7. How often were you pleased or happy with the looks or your teeth and gums, or dentures? 4.1 4.2 3.2
8. How often did you use medication to relieve pain or discomfort from around your mouth? 4.6 4.9 4.7
9. How often were you worried or concerned about the problems with your teeth, gums or dentures? 3.8 3.6 3.1
10. How often did you feel nervous or self-conscious because of problems with your teeth, gums or dentures? 3.6 4.1 3
11. How often did you feel uncomfortable eating in front of people because of problems with you teeth or dentures? 4.5 4.4 4.2
12. How often were your teeth or gums sensitive to hot, cold or sweets? 4.4 4.6 4.9
GOHAI mean score (SD) 4.19 4.26 3.6
  (1.304) (0.993) (1.398)
Table IV.
Multiple comparison by LSD method in physical function items (1, 2, 3 and 4)
Two group comparison Difference between means 95% confidence limits
HR to FP 0.1000 (-0.6613, 0.4613)
FP to CD 0.7250 (0.3637, 1.4863)∗∗∗
HR to CD 0.6250 (-0.2637, 1.3863)∗∗∗

Comparison significant at .05 level are indicated by ∗∗∗

Table V.
Multiple comparison by LSD method in psychosocial items (5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11)
Two group comparison Difference between means 95% confidence limits
HR to FP 0.0000 (-0.4682, 0.4682)
FP to CD 0.7267 (0.2486, 1.1849)∗∗∗
HR to CD 0.7267 (0.2486, 1.1849)∗∗∗

Comparison significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by ∗∗∗

Table VI.
Summary statistics of particle size of each subject on s Groups
Group Subject Particle size
a b S50 (㎜) Mean of S50 (㎜) SD
HR 1 -3.71 3.35 2.71 3.23 0.4
2 -3.33 2.67 3.03
3 -4.73 3.34 3.69
4∗ -3.65 2.31 4.15
5 -4.02 3.29 3.03
6 -3.96 3 3.32
7 -5 4.18 3.03
8 -4.03 3.18 3.16
9 -3.74 3.05 3.02
10 -4.01 3.11 3.22
FP 1 -4.19 3.59 2.89 3.18 0.52
2 -4.12 3.48 2.93
3 -3.92 3.56 2.71
4 -4.08 3.7 2.72
5 -4.6 3.9 2.96
6∗ -3.56 2.15 4.42
7 -3.18 2.43 3.17
8 -3.68 2.56 3.65
9 -3.66 2.68 3.41
10 -4.27 3.59 2.97
CD 1 -4.9 4.1 3.01 3.49 0.43
2 -4.25 3.5 3.03
3 -4.3 2.73 4.24
4 -4.22 3.36 3.14
5 -4.2 2.99 3.59
6 -4.08 3.19 3.2
7 -4.1 2.67 4.05
8 -3.76 2.85 3.29
9 -4.46 3.06 3.81
10 -4.77 3.46 3.57

Two standards deviation outlier is indicated by ∗

Table VII.
Summary statistics of maximum bite force of each subject
Group Subject Occlusal force
Value (N) Median value (N) Range
Group HR 1 212.4 370.4 526.1
2 702.5
3 176.4
4 454.4
5 350.7
6 339.6
7 542.4
8 348.2
9 390.2
10 694.4
Group FP 1 306.4 431.4 837.1
2 339.6
3 390.2
4 454.4
5 350.7
6 1126.9
7 408.5
8 461.5
9 1143.5
10 684.5
Group CD 1 94.9 122.2 382.4
2 90.2
3 101.3
4 347.1
5 79.1
6 143.2
7 461.5
8 232.8
9 101.3
10 208.2

N: Newton

TOOLS
Similar articles