SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Akdeniz Diş Hekimliği Dergisi / 2024 / Cilt: 3 Sayı: 3

Comparison of Implant-Supported Overdenture and Classic Complete Dentures in terms of Satisfaction: A Clinical Evaluation

İmplant Destekli Overdenture ile Klasik Tam Protezlerin Memnuniyet Açısından Karşılaştırılması: Bir Klinik Değerlendirme

Eda Gülek(ATATÜRK ÜNİVERSİTESİ, DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-8051-6258
Zehranur Kızıldağ(KAFKAS ÜNİVERSİTESİ, DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ FAKÜLTESİ)0009-0005-2790-8873
Osman Nuri Akarsu(KAFKAS ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5393-956X
Funda Bayındır(ATATÜRK ÜNİVERSİTESİ, DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-5699-2879
Pages
110–121
Publication Date
2024-12-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The proportion of patients with a high school education and above who used implant-supported prostheses was significantly higher than those who used conventional complete dentures.(p 0,05)

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the satisfaction of patients with conventional and implant-supported total dentures and to examine the effect of demographic characteristics on satisfaction.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: A total of 80 patients, 49 females and 31 males, who underwent upper-lower classical complete dentures and upper-lower implant-supported complete dentures at Atatürk University Faculty of Dentistry in 2024 were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The proportion of patients with a high school education and above who used implant-supported prostheses was significantly higher than those who used conventional complete dentures.(p 0,05)
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:implant · overdenture · tam protez

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the satisfaction of patients with conventional and implant-supported total dentures and to examine the effect of demographic characteristics on satisfaction. Materials and Methods: A total of 80 patients, 49 females and 31 males, who underwent upper-lower classical complete dentures and upper-lower implant-supported complete dentures at Atatürk University Faculty of Dentistry in 2024 were included in the study. Questionnaires were distributed to the patients including socio-demographic characteristics (gender, age, marital status, family status, education level, income level) and evaluation of satisfaction with their dentures. Responses were asked to be reported as dissatisfied/satisfied/very satisfied. Chi-square test and Fisher's exact chi-square test were used to compare qualitative data. Results: The mean age of the 80 patients was 61.3% female and 38.7% male. The proportion of patients with a high school education and above who used implant-supported prostheses was significantly higher than those who used conventional complete dentures.(p 0,05)

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, klasik tam protez ve implant destekli tam protez kullanan hastaların memnuniyetlerini değerlendirmek ve demografik özelliklerinin memnuniyet üzerine etkisini incelemekti. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmaya, 2024 yılında Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi’nde, alt-üst klasik tam protez ve üst klasik-alt implant destekli tam protez uygulanan, 49’u kadın ve 31’i erkek, toplam 80 hasta dahil edildi. Hastalara, sosyodemografik özelliklerini (cinsiyet, yaş, medeni durum, öğrenim durumu, gelir düzeyi) içeren ve protezlerinin memnuniyetini değerlendiren anket formları dağıtıldı. Cevapların, memnun değilim/memnunum/çok memnunum şeklinde verilmesi istendi. Niteliksel verilerin karşılaştırılmasında Ki-Kare testi ve Fisher’s Exact Ki-Kare testi kullanıldı. Bulgular: %61,3’ü kadın ve %38,7’si erkek olan toplam 80 hastanın yaş ortalaması idi. İmplant destekli protez kullanan lise ve üzeri eğitim düzeyindeki hastaların oranının, klasik tam protezler kullananlardan anlamlı şekilde yüksek olduğu görüldü. (p 0,05)

🔖

Cite This Article

Gülek, E., Kızıldağ, Z., Akarsu, O. N., Bayındır, F. (2024). Comparison of Implant-Supported Overdenture and Classic Complete Dentures in terms of Satisfaction: A Clinical Evaluation. Akdeniz Diş Hekimliği Dergisi, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 3, 110–121. https://doi.org/10.62268/add.1588588

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (25)

  1. Thomason JM, Lund JP, Chehade A, Feine JS. Patient satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures 6 months after delivery. Int J Prosthodont. 2003;16:467-73.
  2. The Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms. J Prosthetic Dent. 2023;130:e1-3.
  3. Awad MA, Lund JP, Dufresne E, Feine JS. Comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-retained overdentures and conventional dentures among middle-aged edentulous patients: satisfaction and functional assessment. Int J Prosthodont. 2023;16:117-22.
  4. Mau J, Behneke A, Behneke N, Fritzemeier CU, Gomez-Roman G, d'Hoedet B. Randomized multicenter comparison of 2 IMz and 4 TPS screw implants supporting bar-retained overdentures in 425 edentulous mandibles. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18:835-47.
  5. Redford M, Drury TF, Kingman A, Brown LJ. Denture use and the technical quality of dental prostheses among persons 18-74 years of age: United States, 1988-1991. J Dent Res. 1996;75:714-25.
  6. Assunção WG, Barão VA, Delben JA, Gomes EA, Tabata LF. A comparison of patient satisfaction between treatment with conventional complete dentures and overdentures in the elderly: a literature review. Gerodontology. 2010;27:154-62.
  7. Doundoulakis JH, Eckert SE, Lindquist CC, Jeffcoat MK. The implant-supported overdenture as an alternative to the complete mandibular denture. J Am Dent Assoc. 2003;134:1455-8.
  8. Thomason JM. The McGill Consensus Statement on Overdentures. Mandibular 2-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2002;10:95-6.
  9. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Montreal, Quebec, May 24-25, 2002. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002;17:601-2.
  10. Kiyak A, Beach B, Worthington P, Taylor T, Bolender C, Evans J. The psychological impact of osseointegrated dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1990;5:61-9.
  11. Cibirka RM, Razzoog M, Lang BR. Critical evaluation of patient responses to dental implant therapy. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;78:574-81.
  12. Abozaed HW, El-Waseef FA. Patient satisfaction and oral health–related quality of lıfe for single-implant mandibular overdentures reinforced by cobalt chromium or peek framework versus conventional complete denture: a crossover trial. Alexandria Dent J. 2024;49:116-23.
  13. Geckili O, Bilhan H, Mumcu E, Dayan C, Yabul A, Tuncer N. Comparison of patient satisfaction, quality of life, and bite force between elderly edentulous patients wearing mandibular two implant‐supported overdentures and conventional complete dentures after 4 years. Special Care in Dentistry, 2012;32:136-41.
  14. Bhat S, Chowdhary R, Mahoorkar S. Comparison of masticatory efficiency, patient satisfaction for single, two, and three implants supported overdenture in the same patient: a pilot study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2016;16:182-6.
  15. 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.
  16. Ikbal LK, Kerem K, Ravza E, Damla U, Ahmet Ç, Bülent K, Stephan E. Evaluation of oral stereognosis in relation to tactile ability and patient satisfaction. J Oral Implantol. 2017;43:468-75.
  17. Martín-Ares M, Barona-Dorado C, Guisado-Moya B, Martínez-Rodríguez N, Cortés-Bretón-Brinkmann J, Martínez-González JM. Prosthetic hygiene and functional efficacy in completely edentulous patients: satisfaction and quality of life during a 5-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27:1500-5.
  18. Demirekin ZB, Erten E. Evaluation of quality of life-related to oral health after different prosthetic treatments in edentulism patients. J Oral Health Dent. 2022;10:112-24.
  19. Subramanian D, Govindarajulu RT, Narayanan V, Kalimuthu ND. Comparison of expectation and satisfaction among new and existing denture wearers and correlation of duration of previous denture-wearing experience to satisfaction in completely edentulous patients: a pilot study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2019;19:324-31.
  20. Vafaee F, Atibeh EA, Moradi O, Rastegarfard N, Ghadermarzi K, Sharifi S. Evaluation of satisfaction level in patients with mandibular implant supported overdentures. Avicenna J Dent Res. 2016;8:7.
  21. Bhandare V, Dange SP, Khalikar A, Khalikar S. Implant supported overdenture: a step ahead from edentulism Int J Oral Implantol Clin Res. 2015;6:76-81.
  22. Roccuzzo M, Bonino F, Gaudioso L, Zwahlen M, Meijer HJ. What is the optimal number of implants for removable reconstructions? A systematic review on implant-supported overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:229-37.
  23. Al-Zubeidi MI, Alsabeeha NH, Thomson WM, Payne AG. Patient satisfaction with maxillary 3-implant overdentures using different attachment systems opposing mandibular 2-implant overdentures. Clin Implant Dent Related Res. 2012;14:e11-9.
  24. 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.
  25. Boven GC, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Meijer HJA. Improving masticatory performance, bite force, nutritional state and patient's satisfaction with implant overdentures: a systematic review of the literature. J Oral Rehabil. 2011;42:220-3.