Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Quality of life, patient preferences, and implant survival and success of tapered implant-retained mandibular overdentures as a function of the attachment system

  • Ilze Indriksone (Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry of Riga Stradins University) ;
  • Pauls Vitols (Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry of Riga Stradins University) ;
  • Viktors Avkstols (Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry of Riga Stradins University) ;
  • Linards Grieznis (Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry of Riga Stradins University) ;
  • Kaspars Stamers (Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry of Riga Stradins University) ;
  • Susy Linder (Department of Medical Affairs, Institut Straumann AG-Basel) ;
  • Michel Dard (Department of Medical Affairs, Institut Straumann AG-Basel)
  • Received : 2021.11.12
  • Accepted : 2022.03.14
  • Published : 2023.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: A novel attachment system for implant-retained overdentures (IRODs) with novel material combinations for improved mechanical resilience and prosthodontic success (Novaloc) has been recently introduced as an alternative to an existing system (Locator). This study investigated whether differences between the Novaloc and Locator attachment systems translate into differences in implant survival, implant success, and patient-centered outcomes when applied in a real-world in-practice comparative setting in patients restored with mandibular IRODs supported by 2 interforaminal implants (2-IRODs). Methods: This prospective, intra-subject crossover comparison compared 20 patients who received 2 intra-foraminal bone level tapered implants restored with full acrylic overdentures using either the Locator or Novaloc attachment system. After 6 months of function, the attachment in the corresponding dentures was switched, and the definitive attachment system type was delivered based on the patient's preference after 12 months. For the definitive attachment system, implant survival was evaluated after 24 months. The primary outcomes of this study were oral health-related quality of life and patient preferences related to prosthetic and implant survival. Secondary outcomes included implant survival rate and success, prosthetic survival, perceived general health, and patient satisfaction. Results: Patient-centered outcomes and patient preferences between attachment systems were comparable, with relatively high overall patient satisfaction levels for both attachment systems. No difference in the prosthetic survival rate between study groups was detected. The implant survival rate over the follow-up period after 24 months in both groups was 100%. Conclusions: The results of this in-practice comparison indicate that both attachment systems represent comparable candidates for the prosthodontic retention of 2-IRODs. Both systems showed high rates of patient satisfaction and implant survival. The influence of material combinations of the retentive system on treatment outcomes between the tested systems remains inconclusive and requires further investigations.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank Leticia Grize from the University of Basel (Switzerland) for the statistical analysis, Novonexile AG (Switzerland) for writing assistance and editorial support in preparing the manuscript, and Dr. med. Dent. Pedro Goncalves for assisting in the planning of the study.

References

  1. Nowjack-Raymer RE, Sheiham A. Numbers of natural teeth, diet, and nutritional status in US adults. J Dent Res 2007;86:1171-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910708601206
  2. Hilgert JB, Hugo FN, de Sousa ML, Bozzetti MC. Oral status and its association with obesity in Southern Brazilian older people. Gerodontology 2009;26:46-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-2358.2008.00226.x
  3. Lowe G, Woodward M, Rumley A, Morrison C, Tunstall-Pedoe H, Stephen K. Total tooth loss and prevalent cardiovascular disease in men and women: possible roles of citrus fruit consumption, vitamin C, and inflammatory and thrombotic variables. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:694-700. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00086-6
  4. Holm-Pedersen P, Schultz-Larsen K, Christiansen N, Avlund K. Tooth loss and subsequent disability and mortality in old age. J Am Geriatr Soc 2008;56:429-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01602.x
  5. Carlsson GE. Facts and fallacies: an evidence base for complete dentures. Dent Update 2006;33:134-6. https://doi.org/10.12968/denu.2006.33.3.134
  6. Tallgren A. The continuing reduction of the residual alveolar ridges in complete denture wearers: a mixed-longitudinal study covering 25 years. J Prosthet Dent 1972;27:120-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(72)90188-6
  7. Sharka R, Abed H, Hector M. Oral health-related quality of life and satisfaction of edentulous patients using conventional complete dentures and implant-retained overdentures: an umbrella systematic review. Gerodontology 2019;36:195-204. https://doi.org/10.1111/ger.12399
  8. van der Bilt A, Burgers M, van Kampen FM, Cune MS. Mandibular implant-supported overdentures and oral function. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21:1209-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01915.x
  9. Buser D, Janner SF, Wittneben JG, Bragger U, Ramseier CA, Salvi GE. 10-year survival and success rates of 511 titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a retrospective study in 303 partially edentulous patients. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:839-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00456.x
  10. Kodama N, Singh BP, Cerutti-Kopplin D, Feine J, Emami E. Efficacy of mandibular 2-implant overdenture: an updated meta-analysis on patient-based outcomes. JDR Clin Trans Res 2016;1:20-30.
  11. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-2358.2002.00003.x
  12. Thomason JM, Feine J, Exley C, Moynihan P, Muller 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;207:185-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.728
  13. Dard M, Kuehne S, Obrecht M, Grandin M, Helfenstein J, Pippenger BE. Integrative performance analysis of a novel bone level tapered implant. Adv Dent Res 2016;28:28-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034515624443
  14. Kim HY, Lee JY, Shin SW, Bryant SR. Attachment systems for mandibular implant overdentures: a systematic review. J Adv Prosthodont 2012;4:197-203. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2012.4.4.197
  15. Geckili O, Bilhan H, Bilgin T. Locator attachments as an alternative to ball attachments in 2-implant retained mandibular overdentures. J Can Dent Assoc 2007;73:679-82.
  16. 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. https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00070
  17. Krennmair G, Weinlander M, Piehslinger E. Retention components used in implant supported restorations. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 2014;69:326-35.
  18. Kleis WK, Kammerer PW, Hartmann S, Al-Nawas B, Wagner W. A comparison of three different attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: one-year report. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12:209-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00154.x
  19. 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;27:1560-8.
  20. Bilhan H, Geckili O, Mumcu E, Bilmenoglu C. Maintenance requirements associated with mandibular implant overdentures: clinical results after first year of service. J Oral Implantol 2011;37:697-704. https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00096
  21. Passia N, Ghazal M, Kern M. Long-term retention behaviour of resin matrix attachment systems for overdentures. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2016;57:88-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.11.038
  22. 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;20:1293-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01810.x
  23. Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. Tissue integrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Company; 1985. p. 199-209.
  24. Doyle DJ, Goyal A, Bansal P, Garmon EH. American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification. Treasure Island: StatPearls Publishing; 2022
  25. 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;28:1619-28. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3067
  26. Buser D, Weber HP, Lang NP. Tissue integration of non-submerged implants. 1-year results of a prospective study with 100 ITI hollow-cylinder and hollow-screw implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1990;1:33-40. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1990.010105.x
  27. Slade GD. Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1997;25:284-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1997.tb00941.x
  28. EuroQol Group. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199-208.
  29. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996;37:53-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6
  30. Dard M. The standardised in-line clinical case series: a new concept for real-world evidence in dentistry. J Dent Oral Health 2017;3:073.
  31. 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;23:310-7.
  32. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60088-7
  33. Pisani M, Bedos C, da Silva CH, Fromentin O, de Albuquerque RF Jr. A qualitative study on patients' perceptions of two types of attachments for implant overdentures. J Oral Implantol 2017;43:476-81. https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-17-00166
  34. Kern JS, Kern T, Wolfart S, Heussen N. A systematic review and meta-analysis of removable and fixed implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws: post-loading implant loss. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:174-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12531
  35. Salman A, Thacker S, Rubin S, Dhingra A, Ioannidou E, Schincaglia GP. Immediate versus delayed loading of mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a 60-month follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2019;46:863-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13153