Comparison of the effects of two different types of retainers used in implant-supported overdenture prosthesis on patient satisfaction

Aim: This study aimed to investigate the effects of two different types of retainers, i.e., the locator system and ball attachment, on patient satisfaction, in patients using conventional complete denture in the maxilla and two implant-supported overdentures (IOD) in the mandible. Material and Methods: This study was carried out in 113 patients using ten questions selected from the OHIP–49 questionnaire. The patients were divided into ball attachment (BALL) and locator (LOC) group according to the retainer type used in their IOD prostheses, and their effects on patient satisfaction were evaluated. Also, changes in satisfaction levels were examined in terms of gender and age. The data were then analyzed statistically. Results: All the 113 study participants were found to be satisfied with IODs, regardless of age and sex, with a score of 10.5 (±7.5) out of 40 points, which was the highest dissatisfaction score. Of the 55 patients (10.07 ±7.94) in the BALL group and 58 patients (10.91 ±7.19) evaluated in the LOC group, no statistically significant difference was observed on the basis of the retainer type in terms of general satisfaction and factors like age and sex. Conclusion: Based on the satisfaction scores of IOD, it was concluded that it had a positive effect on the quality of life of the patients, which remained unaffected by the retainer type and factors like gender and age.

İmplant destekli hareketli protezlerde kullanılan iki farklı tutucu tipinin hastaların memnuniyetleri üzerine etkilerinin karşılaştırılması

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, üst çenede konvansiyonel total protez ve alt çenede 2 implant destekli hareketli protez (IDO) kullanan hastaların, IDO protezlerden genel memnuniyetlerinin ve en sık kullanılan tutucu tiplerinden olan locator sistem ve ball ataşmanların, bu memnuniyet üzerine etkilerinin araştırılmasıdır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Yapılan bu araştırmada, 113 hastanın katılımıyla, OHIP-49 testi sorularından seçilen 10 sorudan yararlanılarak, üst çenede konvansiyonel tam protez, alt çenede IDO kullanan hastaların, öncelikle IDO protezlerinden genel memnuniyetleri ve ardından hastaların tutucu tiplerine göre ball ataşman (BALL) ve locator grubu (LOC) olarak ayrılmasıyla, bu iki tutucu tipinin hastaların memnuniyetleri üzerindeki etkileri değerlendirilmiştir. Ayrıca her iki koşulda cinsiyet ve yaş faktörlerine göre bu memnuniyetlerdeki değişimler incelenmiştir. Elde edilen veriler istatistiksel olarak analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular: Çalışmaya katılan 113 hastanın yaş ve cinsiyet faktörlerinden bağımsız olarak, genel anlamda IDO’lardan, en yüksek memnuniyetsizlik puanı olan 40 puan üzerinden 10,5 (±7,5) puan ile memnun olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Tutucu tipine göre değerlendirme yapıldığında; BALL grubunda 55 hastada elde edilen 10,07 ± 7,94 ve LOC grubunda 58 hastada elde edilen 10,91 ± 7,19 memnuniyet skorlarına göre, tutucu tipinin hem genel hem de yaş-cinsiyet faktörlerine göre ayrı ayrı değerlendirildiğinde, hasta memnuniyetleri açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark oluşmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın sınırları dahilinde, IDO protezlerin yarattıkları memnuniyet skorlarına göre, hastaların yaşam kaliteleri üzerinde olumlu etkisinin olduğu ve bu memnuniyetin kullanılan tutucu tipinden ve cinsiyet-yaş faktörlerinden etkilenmediği sonucuna varılmıştır.

PDF

___

1. Kutkut A, Bertoli E, Frazer R, Pinto-Sinai G, Fuentealba Hidalgo R, Studts J. A systematic review of studies comparing conventional complete denture and implant retained overdenture. J Prosthodont Res 2018; 62: 1-9.

2. Sharma AJ, Nagrath R, Lahori M. A comparative evaluation of chewing efficiency, masticatory bite force, and patient satisfaction between conventional denture and implant-supported mandibular overdenture: An in vivo study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2017; 17: 361-72.

3. Cardoso RG, Melo LA, Barbosa GA, Calderon PD, Germano AR, Mestriner WJ, et al. Impact of mandibular conventional denture and overdenture on quality of life and masticatory efficiency. Braz Oral Res 2016; 30: e102.

4. British Society for the Study of Prosthetic D. The York consensus statement on implant-supported overdentures. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2009; 17: 164-165.

5. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, et al. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Gerodontology 2002; 19: 3-4.

6. Warreth A, Alkadhimi AF, Sultan A, Byrne C, Woods E. Mandibular implant-supported overdentures: attachment systems, and number and locations of implants-- Part I. J Ir Dent Assoc 2015; 61: 93-97.

7. Warreth A, Byrne C, Alkadhimi AF, Woods E, Sultan A. Mandibular implant-supported overdentures: attachment systems, and number and locations of implants-- Part II. J Ir Dent Assoc 2015; 61: 144-148.

8. El-Anwar MI, El-Taftazany EA, Hamed HA, ElHay MAA. Influence of Number of Implants and Attachment Type on Stress Distribution in Mandibular Implant-Retained Overdentures: Finite Element Analysis. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2017; 5: 244-249.

9. Choi JW, Bae JH, Jeong CM, Huh JB. Retention and wear behaviors of two implant overdenture stud-type attachments at different implant angulations. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 117: 628-635.

10. 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; 48: 130-137.

11. Cicciu M, Cervino G, Bramanti E, Lauritano F, Lo Gudice G, Scappaticci L, et al. FEM Analysis of Mandibular Prosthetic Overdenture Supported by Dental Implants: Evaluation of Different Retention Methods. Comput Math Methods Med 2015; 2015: 943839.

12. Kronstrom M, Carlsson GE. An International Survey among Prosthodontists of the Use of Mandibular Implant- Supported Dental Prostheses. J Prosthodont 2017.

13. Slade GD. Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1997; 25: 284-290.

14. Slade GD, Spencer AJ. Development and evaluation of the Oral Health Impact Profile. Community Dent Health 1994; 11: 3-11.

15. Fernandez-Estevan L, Montero J, Selva Otaolaurruchi EJ, Sola Ruiz F. Patient-centered and clinical outcomes of mandibular overdentures retained with the locator system: A prospective observational study. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 117: 367-372.

16. Awad MA, Rashid F, Feine JS, Overdenture Effectiveness Study Team C. The effect of mandibular 2-implant overdentures on oral health-related quality of life: an international multicentre study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014; 25: 46-51.

17. Pommer B. Use of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) in Clinical Oral Implant Research. Journal of Dental, Oral and Craniofacial Epidemiology 2013; 1: 3-10.

18. Mumcu E, Bilhan H, Geckili O. The effect of attachment type and implant number on satisfaction and quality of life of mandibular implant-retained overdenture wearers. Gerodontology 2012; 29: e618-623.

19. Başol ME, Karaağaçlıoğlu L, Yılmaz B. Türkçe Ağız Sağlığı Etki Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi-OHIP-14-TR. Turkiye Klinikleri J Dental Sci 2014; 20: 85-92.

20. Elsyad MA, Errabti HM, Mustafa AZ. Mandibular Denture Base Deformation with Locator and Ball Attachments of Implant-Retained Overdentures. J Prosthodont 2016; 25: 656-664.

21. Cristache CM, Muntianu LA, Burlibasa M, Didilescu AC. Five-year clinical trial using three attachment systems for implant overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014; 25: e171-178.

22. Persic S, Celic R, Vojvodic D, Petricevic N, Kranjcic J, Zlataric DK, et al. Oral Health-Related Quality of Life in Different Types of Mandibular Implant Overdentures in Function Longer Than 3 Years. Int J Prosthodont 2016; 29: 28-30.

23. Krennmair G, Seemann R, Fazekas A, Ewers R, Piehslinger E. Patient preference and satisfaction with implant- supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or locator attachments: a crossover clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27: 1560-1568.

24. Cehreli MC, Karasoy D, Kokat AM, Akca K, Eckert S. A systematic review of marginal bone loss around implants retaining or supporting overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010; 25: 266-277.

25. Sadig W. A comparative in vitro study on the retention and stability of implant-supported overdentures. Quintessence Int 2009; 40: 313-319.

26. Scherer MD, McGlumphy EA, Seghi RR, Campagni WV. Comparison of retention and stability of implant-retained overdentures based upon implant number and distribution. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013; 28: 1619-1628.

27. Sultana N, Bartlett DW, Suleiman M. Retention of implant- supported overdentures at different implant angulations: comparing Locator and ball attachments. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28: 1406-1410.

28. Scherer MD, McGlumphy EA, Seghi RR, Campagni WV. Comparison of retention and stability of two implant- retained overdentures based on implant location. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112: 515-521.

29. Burns DR, Unger JW, Coffey JP, Waldrop TC, Elswick RK, Jr. Randomized, prospective, clinical evaluation of prosthodontic modalities for mandibular implant overdenture treatment. J Prosthet Dent 2011; 106: 12-22.

30. Kuoppala R, Napankangas R, Raustia A. Quality of Life of Patients Treated With Implant-Supported Mandibular Overdentures Evaluated With the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14): a Survey of 58 Patients. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2013; 4: e4.

31. Muller F, Duvernay E, Loup A, Vazquez L, Herrmann FR, Schimmel M. Implant-supported mandibular overdentures in very old adults: a randomized controlled trial. J Dent Res 2013; 92: 154S-160S.

32. Pan YH, Lin TM, Liang CH. Comparison of patient's satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures and complete dentures. Biomed J 2014; 37: 156- 162.

33. Yao CJ, Cao C, Bornstein MM, Mattheos N. Patient-reported outcome measures of edentulous patients restored with implant-supported removable and fixed prostheses: A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29: 241-254.

34. Boven GC, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Meijer HJ. Improving masticatory performance, bite force, nutritional state and patient's satisfaction with implant overdentures: a systematic review of the literature. J Oral Rehabil 2015; 42: 220-233.

35. Elsyad MA, Hegazy SA, Hammouda NI, Al-Tonbary GY, Habib AA. Chewing efficiency and electromyographic activity of masseter muscle with three designs of implant- supported mandibular overdentures. A cross-over study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014; 25: 742-748.

36. Hamdan NM, Gray-Donald K, Awad MA, Johnson- Down L, Wollin S, Feine JS. Do implant overdentures improve dietary intake? A randomized clinical trial. J Dent Res 2013; 92: 146S-153S.

37. Cune M, Burgers M, van Kampen F, de Putter C, van der Bilt A. Mandibular overdentures retained by two implants: 10-year results from a crossover clinical trial comparing ball-socket and bar-clip attachments. Int J Prosthodont 2010; 23: 310-317.