The impact of anatomical, prosthetic features, and implant location on quality of life among locator-retained mandibular overdenture wearers

The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of anatomical, prosthetic features and implant location on quality of life (QoL) after treatment with locator-retained mandibular overdentures. Thirty patients with locator-retained mandibular overdentures were included in this study. The study examined the following: (1) demographic characteristics, (2) intraoral measurements, (2a) the age of the prosthesis, (2b) the distance between the implants, (2c) the distance between the alveolar crest and the hypothetical line that crosses two implants (2d) the crest section, (2e) tissue quality, (2f) the arc form, (3) measurements of the prosthesis, (3a) freeway space, (3b) the distance between the canines, (3c) the top of the canine/the distance between the distal teeth of the second molar tooth, (3d) the canine/molar angle, and (3e) the arc form saved. After the measurements were made, patients were asked to mark the VAS (100 mm) scale to indicate their satisfaction with their prostheses and to complete the OHIP-14 questionnaire. A multivariate linear regression analysis was performed using OHIP-14 and VAS variables. The multivariate linear regression analysis showed gender and the distance between the alveolar crest and the hypothetical line that crosses two implants (2c) as the most important factor affecting anatomic, prosthetic features and implant location on QoL (p

PDF

___

Sánchez-Siles M, Ballester-Ferrandis JF, Salazar-Sánchez N, et al. Long-term evaluation of quality of life and satisfaction between implant bar overdentures and conventional complete dentures: A 23 years retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018;20:208-14.

Zhang L, Lyu C, Shang Z, et al. Quality of life of implant-supported overdenture and conventional complete denture in restoring the edentulous mandible: a systematic review. Implant Dent. 2017;26:945-50.

Reissmann DR, Enkling N, Moazzin R, et al. Long-term changes in oral health-related quality of life over a period of 5 years in patients treated with narrow diameter implants: A prospective clinical study. J Dent. 2018;75:84-90.

Al-Imam H, Özhayat EB, Benetti AR, et al. Oral health-related quality of life and complications after treatment with partial removable dental prosthesis. J Oral Rehabil. 2016;43:23-30.

Celebić A, Knezović-Zlatarić D, Papić M, et al. Factors related to patient satisfaction with complete denture therapy. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2003;58:948-53.

Sivaramakrishnan G, Sridharan K. Sridharan. Comparison of implant supported mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures on quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Aust Dent J. 2016;61:482-8.

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.

Limpuangthip N, Somkotra T, Arksornnukit M. Modiﬁed retention and stability criteria for complete denture wearers: A risk assessment tool for impaired masticatory ability and oral health-related quality of life. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120:43-9.

Schuster AJ, Marcello-Machado RM, Bielemann AM, et al. Short-term quality of life change perceived by patients after transition to mandibular overdentures. Braz Oral Res. 2017;31:5.

Policastro VB, Paleari AG, Leite ARP et al. A randomized clinical trial of oral health-related quality of life, peri-implant and kinesiograph parameters in wearers of one-or two-implant mandibular overdentures. J Prosthodont. 2018. [Epub ahead of print]

Matthys C, Vervaeke S, Jacquet W, et al. Impact of crestal bone resorption on quality of life and professional maintenance with conventional dentures or locator-retained mandibular implant overdentures. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120:886-94.

Cakir O, Kazancioglu HO, Celik G, et al. Evaluation of the efficacy of mandibular conventional and implant prostheses in a group of Turkish patients: a quality of life study. J Prosthodont. 2014; 23:390-6.

Preciado A, Del Río J, Lynch CD, et al. Impact of various screwed implant prostheses on oral health-related quality of life as measured with the QoLIP–10 and OHIP–14 scales: A cross-sectional study. J Denti. 2013;41:1196-207.

Preciado A, Del Río J, Suárez-García MJ, et al. 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.

Yamamoto S, Shiga H. Masticatory performance and oral health-related quality of life before and after complete denture treatment. J Prosthodont Res. 2018;62:370-4.

Jenei Á1, Sándor J2, Hegedűs C, et al. Oral health-related quality of life after prosthetic rehabilitation: a longitudinal study with the OHIP questionnaire. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:99.

Husain FA, Tatengkeng F. Oral health-related quality of life appraised by ohip14 between urban and rural areas in kutai kartanegara regency, indonesia: pilot pathﬁnder survey. Open Dent J. 2017;11:557.

Kutkut A, Bertoli E, Frazer R, et al. A systematic review of studies comparing conventional complete denture and implant retained overdenture. J Prosthodont Res. 2018;62:1-9.

MacEntee MI, Walton JN, Glick N. A clinical trial of patient satisfaction and prosthodontic needs with ball and bar attachments for implant-retained complete overdentures: three-year results. J Prosthet Dent. 2005;93:28-37.

Castillo-Oyagüe R, Suárez-García MJ, Perea C, et al. Validation of a new, speciﬁc, complete, and short OHRQoL scale (QoLFAST-10) for wearers of implant overdentures and ﬁxed-detachable hybrid prostheses. J Dent. 2016;49:22-32.

Perea C, Del Río J, Preciado A, et al. Validation of the ‘Quality of Life with Implant Prostheses (QoLIP-10)’questionnaire for wearers of cement-retained implant-supported restorations. J Dent. 2015;43:1021-31.

Perea C, Preciado A, Río JD, et al. Oral aesthetic-related quality of life of muco-supported prosthesis and implant-retained overdenture wearers assessed by a new, short, speciﬁc scale (QoLDAS-9). J Dent. 2015;43:1337-45.

Geckili O, Bilhan H, Bilgin T. Bilhan. Impact of mandibular two-implant retained overdentures on life quality in a group of elderly Turkish edentulous patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2011;53:233-236.

Scherer MD1, McGlumphy EA2, Seghi RR, et al. Comparison of retention and stability of two implant-retained overdentures based on implant location. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112:515-21.

Shayegh SS, Hakimaneh SM, BaghaniMT, et al. Effect of interimplant distance and cyclic loading on the retention of overdenture attachments. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2017;18:1078-84.

Lee JY, Kim HY, Shin SW. et al. Number of implants for mandibular implant overdentures: a systematic review. J Adv Prosthodont. 2012;4:204-9. 27.

a literature review. Implant Dent. 2006;15:24-34.

Naert I, Alsaadi G, Quirynen M. Prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction with two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a 10-year randomized clinical study. Int J Prosthodont. 2004;17:401-10.

Fernandez-Estevan L, Montero J, Otaolaurruchi EJS, et al. Patient-centered and clinical outcomes of mandibular overdentures retained with the locator system: A prospective observational study. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117:367-72.