A prospective study of patient satisfaction after implant supported mandibular overdenture treatment in fully edentulous patients

Ju-Hee Hong; Gyu-Un Jung; Sang-Wan Shin; Eun-Kyoung Pang

doi:10.4047/jkap.2015.53.1.1

Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.53(1) > 1034815

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Hong, Jung, Shin, and Pang: A prospective study of patient satisfaction after implant supported mandibular overdenture treatment in fully edentulous patients

Original Article

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2015;53(1):1-8.

Published online: 9 February 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2015.53.1.1

A prospective study of patient satisfaction after implant supported mandibular overdenture treatment in fully edentulous patients

Ju-Hee Hong¹, Gyu-Un Jung², Sang-Wan Shin³, Eun-Kyoung Pang^1,^2,^4,^∗

¹Department of Clinical Oral Health Science, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

²Department of Periodontology, Mokdong Hospital, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

³Postgraduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Institute for Clinical Dental Research, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

⁴Department of Periodontology, Graduated School of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

^∗Corresponding Author: Eun-Kyoung Pang Department of Periodontology, Graduated School of Medicine, Ewha Womans University 1071 Anyangcheon-ro, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, 158-710, Republic of Korea +82 2 2650 2679: e-mail, ekpang@ewha.ac.kr

^∗ This study was granted by the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (grant number A110669).

Received 27 August 201425 September 2014 Accepted 1 October 2014

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

Purpose

The purpose of this prospective study was to compare the satisfaction levels of the patients worn implant supported mandibular overdentures and conventional complete dentures.

Materials and methods

Full edentulous patients (n=40) who were planned to do implant supported mandibular overdentures, aged 51 to 82 years, were enrolled in this study. All subjects rated their satisfaction levels (mastication, pronunciation, esthetics, pain, and general satisfaction) of their original conventional dentures prior to treatment and their new overdentures 1 week and 12 weeks after the delivery on 10 cm visual analogue scales. Repeated-measures ANOVA was performed to compare the satisfaction level of each three period (P<.05).

Results

The mean satisfaction levels of the implant supported overdentures after 1 week and 12 weeks of delivery were significantly higher than those of the conventional complete dentures in all scoring parameters (P<.05). After 12 weeks of overdenture delivery, the increase of the satisfaction levels in mastication, pronunciation, and pain and the decrease in esthetics and general satisfaction were observed in comparison with those after 1 week of delivery, however, no significant difference was found between the satisfaction levels of 1 week and 12 weeks after delivery.

Conclusion

An implant supported overdenture might be one of the effective ways to give more satisfaction to patients who were not gratified with a conventional denture and eventually to improve their quality of life.

Keywords: Denture, Complete, Dental implants, Denture, Overlay, Esthetics, Mastication

REFERENCES

1. Boerrigter EM, Stegenga B, Raghoebar GM, Boering G. Patient satisfaction and chewing ability with implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a comparison with new complete dentures with or without preprosthetic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995; 53:1167–73.

2. Haraldson T, Karlsson U, Carlsson GE. Bite force and oral function in complete denture wearers. J Oral Rehabil. 1979; 6:41–8.

3. Kapur KK, Garrett NR, Hamada MO, Roumanas ED, Freymiller E, Han T, Diener RM, Levin S, Wong WK. Randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-supported overdentures and conventional dentures in diabetic patients. Part III: comparisons of patient satisfaction. J Prosthet Dent. 1999; 82:416–27.

4. Redford M, Drury TF, Kingman A, Brown LJ. Denture use and the technical quality of dental prostheses among persons 18-74 years of age: United States, 1988-1991. J Dent Res. 1996; 75:714–25.

5. Atwood DA. Bone loss of edentulous alveolar ridges. J Periodontol. 1979; 50:11–21.

6. Tallgren A. The continuing reduction of the residual alveolar ridges in complete denture wearers: a mixed-longitudinal study covering 25 years. J Prosthet Dent. 1972; 27:120–32.

7. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, Head T, Lund JP, MacEntee M, Mericske-Stern R, Mojon P, Morais J, Naert I, Payne AG, Penrod J, Stoker GT, Tawse-Smith A, Taylor TD, Thomason JM, Thomson WM, Wismeijer D. 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; 17:601–2.

8. 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; 207:185–6.

9. Thomason JM. The McGill Consensus Statement on Overdentures. Mandibular 2-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2002; 10:95–6.

10. van Steenberghe D, Quirynen M, Naert I, Maffei G, Jacobs R. Marginal bone loss around implants retaining hinging mandibular overdentures, at 4-, 8- and 12-years follow-up. J Clin Periodontol. 2001; 28:628–33.

11. Haraldson T, Jemt T, Stålblad PA, Lekholm U. Oral function in subjects with overdentures supported by osseointegrated implants. Scand J Dent Res. 1988; 96:235–42.

12. Assunça ̃o WG, Bara ̃o VA, Delben JA, Gomes EA, Tabata LF. A comparison of patient satisfaction between treatment with conventional complete dentures and overdentures in the elderly: a literature review. Gerodontology. 2010; 27:154–62.

13. Berg E. Acceptance of full dentures. Int Dent J. 1993; 43:299–306.

14. Kalk W, de Baat C. Patients' complaints and satisfaction 5 years after complete denture treatment. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1990; 18:27–31.

15. van Waas MA. The influence of psychologic factors on patient satisfaction with complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 63:545–8.

16. Fenlon MR, Sherriff M. An investigation of factors influencing patients' satisfaction with new complete dentures using structural equation modelling. J Dent. 2008; 36:427–34.

17. Sato Y, Hamada S, Akagawa Y, Tsuga K. A method for quantifying overall satisfaction of complete denture patients. J Oral Rehabil. 2000; 27:952–7.

18. Tang L, Lund JP, Taché R, Clokie CM, Feine JS. A within-sub-ject comparison of mandibular long-bar and hybrid implant-supported prostheses: psychometric evaluation and patient prefer-ence. J Dent Res. 1997; 76:1675–83.

19. Berg E. The influence of some anamnestic, demographic, and clinical variables on patient acceptance of new complete dentures. Acta Odontol Scand. 1984; 42:119–27.

20. Thomason JM, Lund JP, Chehade A, Feine JS. Patient satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures 6 months after delivery. Int J Prosthodont. 2003; 16:467–73.

21. van der Bilt A, Burgers M, van Kampen FM, Cune MS. Mandibular implant-supported overdentures and oral function. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 21:1209–13.

22. Fontijn-Tekamp FA, Slagter AP, Van Der Bilt A, Van 'T Hof MA, Witter DJ, Kalk W, Jansen JA. Biting and chewing in overdentures, full dentures, and natural dentitions. J Dent Res. 2000; 79:1519–24.

23. von Wowern N, Gotfredsen K. Implant-supported overdentures, a prevention of bone loss in edentulous mandibles? A 5-year follow-up study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12:19–25.

24. Al-Zubeidi MI, Alsabeeha NH, Thomson WM, Payne AG. Patient satisfaction and dissatisfaction with mandibular two-implant overdentures using different attachment systems: 5-year out-comes. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012; 14:696–707.

25. Harris D, Höfer S, O'Boyle CA, Sheridan S, Marley J, Benington IC, Clifford T, Houston F, O'Connell B. A comparison of implant-retained mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures on quality of life in edentulous patients: a randomized, prospective, within-subject controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24:96–103.

26. Preciado A, Del R l′o J, Sua′rez-Garc l′a MJ, Montero J, Lynch CD, Castillo-Oyagüe R. Differences in impact of patient and prosthetic characteristics on oral health-related quality of life among implant-retained overdenture wearers. J Dent. 2012; 40:857–65.

27. Grogono AL, Lancaster DM, Finger IM. Dental implants: a survey of patients' attitudes. J Prosthet Dent. 1989; 62:573–6.

28. 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; 16:117–22.

29. Awad MA, Lund JP, Shapiro SH, Locker D, Klemetti E, Chehade A, Savard A, Feine JS. 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; 16:390–6.

30. Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM, Batenburg RH, Vissink A. Mandibular overdentures supported by two Brånemark, IMZ or ITI implants: a ten-year prospective randomized study. J Clin Periodontol. 2009; 36:799–806.

Table 1.

Demographic data of patients

Age (years)	Male (N)	Female (N)	Total (N)
51 to 59	6	2	8
60 to 69	5	6	11
70 to 79	6	10	16
80 to 82	3	2	5
Total (N)	20	20	40

Table 2.

Condition of dentures

Denture	Patients (N)	Percentage (%)
Existing denture	28	70
New denture	12	30
Total	40	100