Background: Implant-supported overdentures could have many benefits for patients, especially in the lower jaws. As a matter of fact, the most common reason for prescribing mandibular overdenture is dissatisfaction of patients with mandibular dentures usually because of a lack of retention, stability and function and speech difficulties. On the other hand, patients' expectations of overdenture treatments are their main disadvantage. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the satisfaction of patients who had received mandibular implant supported overdenture treatment with different number of implants. Patients and Methods: This study was a descriptive cross-sectional study. Twenty-five patients with a mean age of 62.7 years who had received mandibular implant supported overdenture treatment at the dental school of Hamadan University of Medical Sciences were enrolled. Among these patients, six had overdentures supported by one implant, nine had overdentures supported by two implants, two had overdentures supported by three implants, five had overdentures supported by four implants and three had overdentures supported by five implants. The visual analogue scale (VAS) questionnaire was used to evaluate the general satisfaction, comfort, esthetic, fitness, satisfaction of chewing and social communication, and the data was analyzed by the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. Results: All patients in all five groups were satisfied with their overdentures; however there was no significant relationship between the number of implants and fitness (P = 0.446), esthetic (P = 0.843), comfort (P = 0.805), satisfaction of chewing (P = 0.133), social communication (P = 0.322) and general satisfaction (P = 0.493). Conclusions: There was no difference in satisfaction level of patients who had received mandibular overdentures with different number of implants.

No abstract

Background: The minimum standard treatment plan for the reconstruction of an edentulous mandible, according to York, is an overdenture supported by two implants. Objectives: The aims of this study were to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes and peri-implant marginal bone loss around implants in patients treated with mandibular overdentures supported by 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 implants. Materials and Methods: A total of 25 patients with a mean age of 62.7 years old, who were treated with implant supported mandibular overdentures at Hamedan's faculty of dentistry, were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. Among these patients, 6 had overdentures supported by one implant, 9 had overdentures supported by two implants, 2 had overdentures supported by three implants, 5 had overdentures supported by 4 implants, and 3 had overdentures supported by 5 implants. The clinical and radiographic parameters around the implants were assessed, including: probing depth, width of keratinized gingiva, bleeding on probing, peri-implant inflammation, calculus formation, implant mobility, adverse events, and radiographic signs of peri-implant bone loss (distance between the implant shoulder and the level of the mesial and distal proximal bone). The ANOVA and the Fisher's Exact test were used to evaluate the significant differences among the groups. Results: None of the implants had loosened and no adverse events were seen around the implants. Additionally, the clinical variables did not show significant correlation with the number of implants. Overall, the bone resorption showed an inverse and significant relationship with the number of implants (P = 0.001). Conclusions: With mandibular overdentures supported by 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 implants, favorable clinical outcomes can be achieved. However, when increasing the number of implants, marginal bone loss decreases. For example, the patients with five implants showed less marginal bone loss than those with a lesser number of implants.