Evaluation of the Effects of Attachment Type and Implant Number on Life Quality of Implant-Supported Mandibular Overdenture Prosthesis Patients
Main Article Content
Objective: The current study aimed to evaluate the life quality of implant-assisted mandibular overdenture patients who have had additional implant applications and were rehabilitated with ball or bar attachment.
Material and Methods: 53 patients who came to Van Yüzüncü Yil University, Faculty of Dentistry, Prosthodontics Clinic for implant-supported mandibular overdenture treatment between 2019 and 2021 were included in this prospective clinical study (32 females, 30 males; mean age: 64.03; age range: 33-90). The patients were called back for the study precisely one year after prosthetic loading of their implants. Implant-supported mandibular overdenture prosthesis patients diverged into six groups: splinted two implants (bar attachment), single two implants (ball attachment), splinted three implants (bar attachment), single three implants (ball attachment), splinted four implants (bar attachment) and single four implants (ball attachment). And they asked for completing the Turkish version of the OHIP-14 questionnaire.
Results: Ball attachment was used in 45.28% of the participants, a mandibular overdenture design supported by a bar attachment was preferred in 54.72%. Kruskal-Wallis test results indicated that the number of implants had a statistically significant effect only on functional limitation and psychological disability among the seven OHIP-14 categories evaluated (p=0.018, p=0.009). Accordingly, the average functional limitation score in individuals with four implants was 4.44 ± 1.89.
Conclusion: We found that there are a positive correlation between the number of implants and the patient's life quality; however, it can be concluded that attachment type does not significantly affect the scores of the life quality
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Mishra SK, Chowdhary R. Patient's oral health-related quality of life and satisfaction with implant supported overdentures -a systematic review. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2019;9(4):340-6.
Egido Moreno S, Ayuso Montero R, Schemel Suárez M, Roca-Umbert JV, Izquierdo Gómez K, López López J. Evaluation of the quality of life and satisfaction in patients using complete dentures versus mandibular overdentures. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2021;7(2):231-41.
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(1):e102.
Kroll P, Hou L, Radaideh H, Sharifi N, Han PP, Mulligan R, et al. Oral Health-Related Outcomes in Edentulous Patients Treated With Mandibular Implant-Retained Dentures Versus Complete Dentures: Systematic Review With Meta-Analyses. J Oral Implantol. 2018;44(4):313-24.
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):1-9.
Bedi R, Gulati N, McGrath C. A study of satisfaction with dental services among adults in the United Kingdom. Br Dent J. 2005;198(7):433-7.
Preciado A, Del Río J, Suárez-García 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(10):857-65.
Fueki K, Yoshida-Kohno E, Wakabayashi N. Oral health-related quality of life in patients with non-metal clasp dentures: a randomised cross-over trial. J Oral Rehabil. 2017;44(5):405-13.
Armellini DB, Heydecke G, Witter DJ, Creugers NH. Effect of removable partial dentures on oral health-related quality of life in subjects with shortened dental arches: a 2-center cross-sectional study. Int J Prosthodont. 2008;21(6):524-30.
Petersen PE, Bourgeois D, Ogawa H, Estupinan-Day S, Ndiaye C. The global burden of oral diseases and risks to oral health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2005;83:661-9.
Dye BA, Weatherspoon DJ, Lopez Mitnik G. Tooth loss among older adults according to poverty status in the United States from 1999 through 2004 and 2009 through 2014. J Am Dent Assoc. 2019;150(1):9-23.e3.
Swelem AA, Abdelnabi MH. Attachment-retained removable prostheses: Patient satisfaction and quality of life assessment. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2021;125(4):636-44.
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(2):e618-23.
Bilhan H, Geckili O, Sulun T, Bilgin T. A quality-of-life comparison between self-aligning and ball attachment systems for 2-implant-retained mandibular overdentures. J Oral Implantol. 2011;37 Spec No:167-73.
Basol ME, Karaagaçlioglu L, Yilmaz B. Developing a Turkish Oral Health Impact Profile-OHIP-14-TR. Turkiye Klinikleri Dishekimligi Bilimleri Dergisi. 2014;20(2):85.
Al-Harbi FA. Mandibular Implant-supported Overdentures: Prosthetic Overview. Saudi J Med Med Sci. 2018;6(1):2-7.
Ellis JS, Burawi G, Walls A, Thomason JM. Patient satisfaction with two designs of implant supported removable overdentures; ball attachment and magnets. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(11):1293-8.
Thomason JM, Feine J, Exley C, Moynihan P, Müller F, Naert I, et al. Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients--the York Consensus Statement. Br Dent J. 2009;207(4):185-6.
Bi Y, Aldhohrah T, Mashrah MA, Su Y, Yang Z, Guo X, et al. Effects of attachment type and number of dental implants supporting mandibular overdenture on peri-implant health: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2021.
El Syad M, Elgamal M, Mohammed Askar O, Youssef Al-Tonbary G. Patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of conventional denture, fixed prosthesis and milled bar overdenture for All-on-4 implant rehabilitation. A crossover study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30(11):1107-17.
Kuoppala R, Näpänkangas 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(2):e4-e.
Takahashi T, Gonda T, Tomita A, Maeda Y. Effect of Attachment Type on Implant Strain in Maxillary Implant Overdentures: Comparison of Ball, Locator, and Magnet Attachments. Part 2: Palateless Dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33(2):357-64.
Gonçalves F, Campestrini VLL, Rigo-Rodrigues MA, Zanardi PR. Effect of the attachment system on the biomechanical and clinical performance of overdentures: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(4):589-94.
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(4):310-7.
Bergendal T, Engquist B. Implant-supported overdentures: a longitudinal prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998;13(2):253-62.
De Kok IJ, Cooper LF, Guckes AD, McGraw K, Wright RF, Barrero CJ, et al. Factors Influencing Removable Partial Denture Patient-Reported Outcomes of Quality of Life and Satisfaction: A Systematic Review. J Prosthodont. 2017;26(1):5-18.