Patient satisfaction versus retention of implant overdentures with two attachment systems: A randomized trial

Albuquerque, Rubens Ferreira de; Fromentin, Olivier; Lassauzay, Claire; Saraiva, Maria da Conceição Pereira

doi:10.1111/cid.12675

Cited by 18 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Notwithstanding the improved OHIP after 5 years, it was negatively correlated to the maintenance cost and the retention loss as observed by the clinician. It has previously been discussed that the retention of the denture is the most important factor in the patient's comfort (Alfadda et al, ; de Albuquerque, Fromentin, Lassauzay, & Conceição Pereira Saraiva, ). An effect of the resorption of the mandible on the outcome was not observed, contrary to the work of Khalid who observed a significant correlation between the bone volume and the OHIP changes (Khalid et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Five‐year study of mandibular overdentures on stud abutments: Clinical outcome, patient satisfaction and prosthetic maintenance—Influence of bone resorption and implant position

Matthys

Vervaeke

Besseler³

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This prospective study analyses the 5‐year clinical outcome, patient satisfaction and the technical outcome of a 2‐implant overdenture on stud abutments. In addition, the influence of mandibular resorption and implant position on these outcomes was assessed. Material and methods Patients received two implants in a one‐stage delayed protocol. Final prosthesis on stud abutments was finalized after 3 months. Implant survival, bone loss, plaque and sulcus bleeding index, OHIP‐14, technical outcome and costs were assessed after 5 years. The Cawood–Howell classification defined the mandibular resorption. Inter‐implant distances and angles (frontal, sagittal) were digitally measured. The significance level was p < .05. Results Fifty‐six patients, 23 female and 33 males (mean age = 66.3, range 41–82), completed the follow‐up. No implants were lost. Radiographical crestal bone loss was on average 1.25 mm (standard deviation SD 1.06), bleeding index was 0.75 (SD 0.73), and plaque index was 1.15 (SD 0.75) and higher for low mandibles (p = .001). The OHIP‐14 reduction post‐connection and after 5 years was significant (p < .001). Five‐year maintenance required on average 6.7 (SD 4.8, range 0–25) interventions per patient. A larger inter‐implant distance was associated with fewer replacement of retention inserts (p = .034) and less interventions (p = .006). Larger frontal (p = .023) and sagittal (p = .046) inter‐implant angles (non‐parallelism) required more inserts. The maintenance cost negatively influences the patient satisfaction (p = .004). 83% of the stud abutments showed wear. Conclusion The implant overdenture on cylindrical stud abutments is a good and stable solution, irrespective of the resorption profile of the mandible. OHIP‐14 improved permanently up to 5 years but is negatively influenced by complication cost. A small inter‐implant distance, more frontal, sagittal inter‐implant divergence increased maintenance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Five‐year study of mandibular overdentures on stud abutments: Clinical outcome, patient satisfaction and prosthetic maintenance—Influence of bone resorption and implant position

Matthys

Vervaeke

Besseler³

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The inter-examiner test (kappa) presented a total score of 0.82 for PubMed/MEDLINE; 0.90 for Scopus and 0.93 for The Cochrane Library, and a high level of agreement among reviewers was considered according to the kappa criteria ( Landis & Koch, 1977 ). All the 7 articles selected ( Burns et al, 1995 : Burns et al, 2011 , Cune et al, 2005 , Ellis et al, 2009 , Krennmair et al, 2012 ; de Albuquerque et al, 2019 ; Taha et al, 2019 ) and randomized crossover clinical trials.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five studies used only 2 implants ( Burns et al, 1995 , Cune et al, 2005 , Ellis et al, 2009 , Krennmair et al, 2012 ; de Albuquerque et al, 2019 ), one study used 4 implants ( Burns et al, 2011 ) and one study used 1 implant ( Taha et al, 2019 ). Overall, 323 overdentures were installed, and all patients received the ball-type system, during treatment.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do ball-type attachment systems for overdenture result in better patient-satisfaction? A systematic review of randomized crossover clinical trial

Rosa

Leão

Guerra

et al. 2021

The Saudi Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This review is to compare patient-satisfaction with ball-type overdenture attachment systems with others attachment systems. Material and methods This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018097234) and adheres the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic searches on PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for published articles were performed before October 2020. The PICO question was: “Do patients with a ball-type overdenture retention system have greater satisfaction, when compared to other attachment systems?” The evaluation of risk of bias was performed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results After searching the databases, seven articles were selected out of a total of 2583. A total of 312 implants were placed in 139 patients, with a mean age of 65.9 years. The risk of bias in the included studies varied according to the different domains in a risk of uncertain bias or low bias risk. No difference was found between the ball attachment systems and the others systems, with respect to patient-satisfaction. The meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference between the ball systems and another systems (P = 0.11; MD: 10.90; 95% CI: −2.55 to 24.35). Conclusions Regarding patient general satisfaction, it was not possible to determine differences between the ball system and another types of attachment system for overdenture. The ball-type system was statistically superior only to the magnet system.

show abstract

“…[ 21 ] A randomized crossover clinical trial stated that the overall mean retention was higher for retentive anchors than locator attachments (difference of 5.0 N, 95% CI: 2.5–7.6; P = 0.0005); the patients preferred the attachments that were delivered the last. [ 22 ] Patient satisfaction was 64% for the ball and 100% for the conus-retained implant overdentures. [ 23 ] The probing depth for ball attachments was quite shallower than that of the bar group and showed excellent peri-implant tissue response as reported by a crossover clinical trial.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the attachments used in implant-supported overdentures

Chaware¹,

Thakkar²

2020

J Indian Prosthodont Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To evaluate the survival rate, tissue response, and patient satisfaction of different attachments used in implant overdenture. Settings and Design: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: Electronic search of peer-review articles published between 2001 and 2019 assessing the attachments used for implant-supported overdentures was done according to PRISMA Guidelies. The review evaluated sixteen articles related to survival of the attachments, the reaction of the soft and hard tissues along with repair and maintenance of the attachments, and overall performance of the overdenture attachments. Statistical Analysis Used: There is statistically significant heterogeneity (Q =374.7403, df = 15, and P < 0.0001). The statistics of fixed-effect model reported an MD of − 0.0880 (95% CI = −0.1536; 0.0225). Result: The review evaluated the 16 articles that met with the inclusion and search criteria. The studies were the combination of bar and ball attachments and their subtypes, magnetic and bar attachments, and locator in combination with other attachments. The meta-analysis of combined 16 studies reported acceptable heterogeneity among 16 studies (I 2 = 96%) and reported to be statistically significant ( P < 0.01). Conclusion: The survival rate of attachments was in the range of 95.8%–97.5% for bar, 96.2%–100% for ball, 90%–92% for magnet and locator attachments were in the range of 97% after a mean follow-up period of 3 years. The bar attachments reported moderate tissue reaction in the form of mucosal changes, gingival inflammation, and bone resorption. The locator attachments require higher maintenance and repair. The magnetic attachments produce higher bone resorption and readily displace under functional force. Patient satisfaction and compliance was higher for ball, locator, and bar attachments as well as low for magnetic attachment. Thus, the ball and locator attachments excellently perform in terms of survival rate, tissue response, and patient satisfaction.

show abstract

Patient satisfaction versus retention of implant overdentures with two attachment systems: A randomized trial

Cited by 18 publications

References 55 publications

Five‐year study of mandibular overdentures on stud abutments: Clinical outcome, patient satisfaction and prosthetic maintenance—Influence of bone resorption and implant position

Five‐year study of mandibular overdentures on stud abutments: Clinical outcome, patient satisfaction and prosthetic maintenance—Influence of bone resorption and implant position

Do ball-type attachment systems for overdenture result in better patient-satisfaction? A systematic review of randomized crossover clinical trial

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the attachments used in implant-supported overdentures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About