Abstract

Objectives: This study was performed to compare implant locators versus customized mandibular implant-retained overdentures considering patient satisfaction and prosthesis maintenance.

Materials and methods: 12 completely edentulous patients from the prosthodontic department-Cairo university outpatient clinic were selected according to specific inclusion criteria. The patients were then allocated randomly into two groups using closed envelopes.

For both groups, each patient received dental implants in the planned position. The patients were left for 3 months for implant healing. For group (A) the patients received two locator attachments. The attachment collar height was selected based on the soft tissue thickness keeping the retentive part 1 mm above the soft tissue level. The denture was relieved opposite the locator housing and the attachment was picked up using cold-cured resin.

For group B, the implants were exposed, and healing collars were placed. After 2 weeks, the implants were scanned using an intraoral scanner. The denture was readapted using a light body closed mouth impression. The relined denture was scanned from both the fitting and the occlusal side. The scanned fitting surface was used to create an inverted virtual model and preceded till creating custom locator attachments. The generated custom attachment abutment was milled from grade V titanium blanks using a 5-axis milling machine. The abutments were anodized into gold color using an electric anodizer. The attachments were then sterilized and placed in the patient mouth as set before in the design. The pick-up of the housing was done in the same manner as group A.

For both groups, the patients were given instructions for using and maintaining the overdenture. Initial denture corrections were made in the first 2 weeks if any complaint existed. The patients were recalled periodically at 3 months, 6 months, 9 months & 12 months respectively.

Results: Likert scale out of 5 was followed for patient denture satisfaction along 3, 6, 9, and 12 months for groups A & B. Applying an Independent t-test for significance evaluation between group A and group B, precluded the higher significance of group B than group A for all follow up as P-value <0.05.For prosthetic maintenance along twelve months follow-up, group B revealed a lower insignificant different incidence of prosthetic complications than group A using the Chi-square test for significance testing between proportions as P-value >0.05.

Conclusions: Customized locator attachments are highly recommended to retain mandibular overdentures, as they exhibited better maintenance values and more wear resistance with minimal loss of retention. Moreover, can be utilized by any presented implant system in the market, in addition, Patients were completely satisfied with their customized locators retaining their implant-supported overdentures.

Keywords

Overdenture; Patient satisfaction; Locators; Dental implants; Attachments

Introduction

Edentulous patients repeatedly experienced problems with their mandibular complete dentures; a treatment modality of employing two implants to support a mandibular overdenture has been advised to improve the retention & stability of the mandibular denture. Besides, maintaining healthy residual alveolar bone [1].

Numerous worldwide research studies examined the influence of implant-assisted overdentures on satisfaction and patient life quality and revealed that; individuals with implant-aided overdentures exhibited higher values of satisfaction and developed improved oral health quality than others with conventional dentures. Additional advancements involve a better chewing ability with the implantretained overdenture. Likewise, it has been recommended that implant placement to support an overdenture will maintain the remaining alveolar ridge [2-4].

Implant-assisted overdentures showed a simpler, cheaper, and more successful prosthetic solution in comparison to fixed restorations during the rehabilitation of edentulous mandibles.

Likewise, they provide enhanced masticatory function, and greater patient satisfaction, than traditional complete dentures [3].

The Preferability of any attachment system relies on the amount of retention needed, arch form, patient expectation, cost, and stress distribution over the implants and related surrounding tissue [4].

Systematic reviews evaluating implant-supported overdentures retained by utilizing a wide range of attachment mechanisms were recently published [5].

Rehabilitation of any edentulous arch necessitates a sufficient vertical space between the opposite arches to guarantee sample restorative material thickness, space for the retentive elements, and cleansability. The needed inter-arch space for an implant-assisted overdenture was determined from the implant shoulder towards the incisal edge and revealed nearly 12-14mm [6]. Moreover, 2- 3 millimeters of soft tissue thickness is generally present above the implant. In various height mucosal thicknesses, locator attachments dispersed the load better in comparison to the ball attachments of the implant and its surrounding structures [7].

Deficient inter-arch space was observed to be one of the key factors of the acrylic denture base mass fracture.

Additionally, it might precede unacceptable positioning of the denture teeth with consequent esthetic and phonetic hazards [8].

The implant-assisted treatment option could be manifested as splinted implants (e.g., bar-retained overdentures), or un-splinted implants (as in the case of the ball, locator, or magnetic implant attachments). Due to the smaller space requirements, cleansability, higher economical achievement, and lower technique sensitivity; un-splinted attachments have been preferred more than splinted attachments [9].

The most popular maintenance necessity of every overdenture attachment is noticed to be the renewal or replacement of its retentive element. Additionally, attachment systems show signs of wear during function, with consequent decrease and even loss of retention [10].

Outcomes recommend that; depending on the attachment system employed, the degree of patient satisfaction is directly influenced by the amount of retention and stability of the overlying implantsupported overdenture [11].

Locators presented the lowest profile of the presently available stud attachments. Besides, they propose simplicity and reasonable space requirements. Also, they provide double-retention (gained through inner and outer contact surfaces between their male and female parts) and after all, easily manipulated by the patient with less costeffectiveness [12]. Furthermore, locator attachments are presented in the market with numerous vertical heights, they are resilient, retentive, durable, and have some built-in angulation compensation. Additionally, repair and replacement are faster and easier than others. It is also possible to integrate the present denture into the new prosthesis [13].

Nowadays, the need for any customized implant-prosthetic component to be utilized by any presented implant system in the market has been widely increased, in addition, Patients will be completely satisfied when finding very simple, affordable customized solutions for retaining their implant-supported overdentures [14].

Materials and Methods

12 completely edentulous patients from the prosthodontic department-Cairo university outpatient clinic were selected. The inclusion criteria included patients with sufficient inter-foraminal bone volume and class I skeletal relationship. Patients with uncontrolled diabetes (HbA1c >7) were excluded. The patients were then allocated randomly into two groups using closed envelopes.

All patients were knowledgeable about the treatment plan and asked for approval on it with written consent forms according to the ethical principles stated in human studies approved by the ethical committee department-Cairo university & signed by the patient himself.

For both groups, after complete denture construction, a CBCT was taken, and the implants were planned to be placed in the lateral incisor/canine region bilaterally. Each patient received two 3.7 × 12 mm implants (S-clean, Dentis, South Korea) in the planned position. The patients were left for 3 months for implant healing (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Patient IO scan superimposed on a patient model to locate the position of the implants concerning the physical model.

For group A the patients received two locator attachments. The attachment collar height was selected based on the soft tissue thickness keeping the retentive part 1 mm above the soft tissue level (Figure 2). The denture was relieved opposite the locator housing and the attachment was picked up using cold-cured resin.

Figure 2: Patients of the group (A) received two locator attachments.

For group B, the implants were exposed, and healing collars were placed. After 2 weeks, the implants were scanned using an intraoral scanner (Medit i700, Medit Corp, South Korea). The denture was readapted using a light body closed mouth impression. The relined denture was scanned from both the fitting and the occlusal side. The scanned fitting surface was used to create an inverted virtual model. The scan of the implant scan bodies was aligned over the virtual model using best surface matching (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Patient wax up superimposed to the model in a transparent model to estimate the position of the attachment.

The scan bodies were used to place virtual analogues and connections in the recorded implant position (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Cross-sectional view to adjust the custom attachment and housing position in the denture body.

Using a blender for dental software a custom low-profile attachment was designed. The overall height is 3.5 mm having a 0.25 mm circumferential undercut on its top (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Assessment of the attachment and housing related to the denture in transparent mode.

A retentive cap was also designed with 70 microns tolerance (Figure 6). The attachments were joined to the implant connection using the software crown implant module (Figure 7).

Figure 6: The custom attachment and housing final design.

Figure 7: The custom attachments joined to the implant connection to achieve perfect parallelism in the same vertical position.

The attachments were placed virtually in such a way that both were parallel and had the same vertical level (Figure 8).

Figure 8: The custom attachments are located at the same vertical position with the housing placed at least 1 mm above the soft tissue level.

The screw access for the abutment screw was then opened using the screw whole function of the software (Figure 9). Afterward, the generated custom attachment abutment was milled using a 5-axis milling machine (Emar 5X, Egypt). The abutments were milled from grade V titanium blanks (Dentaurum, Germany). The abutments were anodized into gold color using an electric anodizer. The attachments were then sterilized and placed in the patient mouth as set before in the design (Figures 10 and 11).

Figure 9: The position of the screw access hole in the attachment design will vary based on the implant position.

Figure 10: The milled custom attachment (front view).

Figure 11: The milled custom attachment (occlusal view).

The pickup of the housing was done in the same manner as group A (Figures 12-14).

Figure 12: 3D printed denture with sockets for the housing pickup.

Figure 13: 3D printed denture with lingual vents ready for pickup.

Figure 14: Overdenture after pickup of the custom housing.

For both groups, the patients were given instructions for using and maintaining the overdenture. Initial denture corrections were made in the first 2 weeks if any complaint existed. The patient was recalled periodically at 3 months, 6 months, 9 months & 12 months respectively.

Sample size determination

A continuous response variable from separate control and experimental individuals was designed for the study, with one control subject for every experimental subject. In a previous study [15], the responses within each subject group had a standard deviation of 0.08 and were normally distributed. To be able to reject the null hypothesis that the population means of the experimental and control groups are equal with probability (power) 0.8, we need to analyze 6 experimental participants and 6 controls, assuming that the real difference between the experimental and control means is 0.15. The likelihood of a Type I error in this test of the null hypothesis is 0.05 [15].

Statistical analysis

SPSS 20^®, GraphPad Prism^®, and Microsoft Excel 2016 were used for the statistical analysis. The means and standard deviations (SD) of the data.

Results

Likert scale out of 5 was followed for patient denture satisfaction along three, six, nine, and twelve months for group A and group B. Mean ± standard deviation of fast obtaining of the satisfactory prosthesis after three months for group A and group B were (2.45 ± 0.25) and (4.28 ± 0.19) respectively. After six months, the mean ± standard deviation for group A and group B were (2.26 ± 0.36) and (4.57 ± 0.74) respectively. While after nine months, the mean ± standard deviation for group A and group B were (2.84 ± 0.94) and (4.39 ± 0.66) respectively. Finally, after twelve months, the mean ± standard deviation for group A and group B were (2.67 ± 0.72) and (4.92 ± 0.28) respectively, all listed the table 1. Using an Independent t-test for significance evaluation between group A and group B revealed the higher significance of group B than group A for follow-up as P-value <0.05, listed in the table (1) (Graphs 1-3).

Graph 1: Bar chart showing patient Denture Satisfaction via Likert Scale at different intervals.

Graph 2: Bar chart showing different Wear Events along Different Overdenture Groups.

Graph 3: Bar chart showing the distribution of Prosthetic Maintenance for Different Attachment Systems.

		Group A		Group B		P-value
		M	SD	M	SD
Fast Obtaining of Satisfactory Prosthesis	Three Months	2.54	0.25	4.28	0.19	<0.0001**
	Six Months	2.26	0.36	4.57	0.74	<0.0001**
	Nine Months	2.84	0.94	4.39	0.66	0.0079*
	Twelve Months	2.67	0.72	4.92	0.28	<0.0001**
Simplicity of Technique	Three Months	1.78	0.16	3.87	0.53	<0.0001**
	Six Months	1.96	0.24	3.52	0.29	<0.0001**
	Nine Months	1.58	0.49	3.94	0.64	<0.0001**
	Twelve Months	1.73	0.76	3.26	0.59	0.003*
Longevity of the Restoration	Three Months	1.25	0.36	4.45	0.18	<0.0001**
	Six Months	1.66	0.27	4.83	0.93	<0.0001**
	Nine Months	1.18	0.51	4.29	0.56	<0.0001**
	Twelve Months	1.63	0.73	4.97	0.39	<0.0001**

Table 1: The Mean ± Standard Deviation of Patient Denture Satisfaction via Likert Scale.
M: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation; P: Probability Level
*Significant Difference P<0.05 using Independent T-test
**Highly Significant Difference P<0.0001 using Independent T-test

For simplicity technique, after three months for group A and group B were (1.78 ± 0.16) and (3.87 ± 0.53) respectively. After six months, the mean ± standard deviation for group A and group B were (1.96 ± 0.24) and (3.52 ± 0.29) respectively. While after nine months, the mean ± standard deviation for group A and group B were (1.58 ± 0.49) and (3.94 ± 0.64) respectively. Finally, after twelve months, the mean ± standard deviation for group A and group B were (1.73 ± 0.76) and (3.26 ± 0.59) respectively, all subscribed in the table 1. Using the Independent t-test for significance evaluation between group A and group B revealed the higher significance of group B than group A for all follow up as P-value < 0.05, listed in table 1.

For longevity of the restoration, after three months for group A and group B were (1.25 ± 0.36) and (4.45 ± 0.18) respectively. After six months, the mean ± standard deviation for group A and group B were (1.66 ± 0.27) and (4.83 ± 0.93) respectively. While after nine months, the mean ± standard deviation for group A and group B were (1.18 ± 0.51) and (4.29 ± 0.56) respectively. Finally, after twelve months, the mean ± standard deviation for group A and group B were (1.63 ± 0.73) and (4.97 ± 0.39) respectively, all listed the table 1. Using an Independent t-test for significance evaluation between group A and group B revealed the higher significance of group B than group A for follow-up as P-value < 0.05, listed in the table 1.

Different wear events were scored as “no wear”, minimal wear”, “moderate wear” and “advanced wear” along three, six, nine, and twelve months for group A and group B. Counts and percentages of “no wear” were 6 (100%) for both groups after three months. After six months, they were revealed 5 (83.33%) and 6 (100%) respectively. While after nine months, counts and percentages of “no wear” were 3 (50%) and 5 (83.33%) respectively. Finally, after twelve months, they were revealed 1 (16.67%) and 4 (66.67%) respectively. Using the Chisquare test for significance evaluation between proportions, it was revealed a higher insignificant difference of group B than group A for all follow up of “no wear” as P-value >0.05. In contrast to other scores of wear events, group A revealed a higher insignificant difference than group B as P-value >0.05, listed in the table 2.

		Group A		Group B		P-value
		N	%	N	%
No Wear	Three Months	6	100.00	6	100.00	---------
	Six Months	5	83.33	6	100.00	0.3173 NS
	Nine Months	3	50.00	5	83.33	0.241 NS
	Twelve Months	1	16.67	4	66.67	0.0926 NS
Minimal Wear	Three Months	0	0.00	0	0.00	---------
	Six Months	2	33.33	0	0.00	0.1380 NS
	Nine Months	1	16.67	1	16.67	---------
	Twelve Months	2	33.33	2	33.33	---------
Moderate Wear	Three Months	0	0.00	0	0.00	---------
	Six Months	0	0.00	0	0.00	---------
	Nine Months	2	33.33	0	0.00	0.1380 NS
	Twelve Months	1	16.67	0	0.00	0.3173 NS
Advanced Wear	Three Months	0	0.00	0	0.00	---------
	Six Months	0	0.00	0	0.00	---------
	Nine Months	0	0.00	0	0.00	---------
	Twelve Months	2	33.33	0	0.00	0.1380 NS

Table 2: Count and Percentages of Different Wear Events along Different Overdenture Groups.
N: Count; %: Percentage; P: Probability Level
NS: Insignificant Difference P>0.05 using Chi-Square test
*Significant Difference P<0.05 using Chi-Square test

For prosthetic maintenance along twelve months follow-up, group B revealed a lower insignificant different incidence of prosthetic complications than group A using the Chi-square test for significance testing between proportions as P-value >0.05 except after nine months which were significant differences for wear and dislodgement and after twelve months for matrix replacement and overdenture relining which were significantly different as P-value <0.05, listed in the table 3.

Table 3: No. and Distribution of Prosthetic Maintenance for Different Attachment systems.
N: Count; %: Percentage; P: Probability Level; D/W: Dislodged and Worn
NS: Insignificant Difference P>0.05 using Chi-Square test
*Significant Difference P<0.05 using Chi-Square test

Discussion

Discussion of methodology

In the current study, all factors that might influence the osseointegration of implants were meticulously considered during patient selection and later after restoration. Those factors could be biological or mechanical or even both; The biological factors could be related to the patient's selection, the procedures of implant instalments, and the degree of oral hygiene measures afterward [16].

Twelve fully edentulous, healthy patients of age ranging from 45-60 years old were included in this study to keep away from any fluctuation in bone changes that might affect the resultant outcomes [17].

Maintenance of good oral hygiene has a great influence on the success of this study to the extent that it has a great impact on the osseointegration process. The oral hygiene of each patient was, therefore, evaluated at the beginning of the study and then throughout the whole investigation period [18].

Patients with superior general health were only selected, to avoid the reflection of any systemic disorder on the bone condition, and hence, osseointegration [19].

Merely cases exhibiting normal maxilla-mandibular relation were included in the study to avoid the effect of transmission of unfavorable loads onto the implants [20].

Heavy smokers were omitted as smoking is considered an essential factor in early implant failure due to anoxia of the oral cavity altogether with a considerable increase in plaque accumulation and calculus deposits, as recommended by numerous authors [21].

Uncooperative patients were eliminated from the investigation, whereas only cooperative patients were incorporated into the study to guarantee their dedication to oral hygiene measures and the regular follow-up visit [22].

Bone quality, as well as quantity, was assessed radiographically to make sure the primary stability of the implant at the time of placement. Furthermore, patients with appropriate bucco-lingual width at sites of implant placement were only chosen to ensure at least one mm. thickness of bone buccally & lingually surrounding the implant after its placement [23].

Provisional jaw relations have been made for the patients to emphasize adequate inter-arch space. Additionally, it helped in the determination of ridge relationship where patients only with Angle class Ị were incorporated in the study to facilitate implant insertion and preclude any possible implant overloading [24].

Regarding infection control throughout implant installation, preand post-surgical antibiotics and chlorohexidine mouthwash were imposed [25].

All used implants were threaded, self-tapping, root-form implants, 12 mm in length and 3.7 mm in width. This implant design was employed to ensure primary stability during the initial healing period, along with increasing the contact area between the implant and the surrounding bony structures for enhanced osseointegration [26].

Appropriate control of the frictional heat generation during the preparation of the implant bed was gently considered to avoid any possible necrosis of the surrounding bony cells which represents a major cause for osseointegration failure [1].

The covering screws were placed onto the implants to prevent the possible entrance of contaminants or food accumulation between the visits.

The cases were followed up for one year to ensure appropriate prosthesis maintenance as well as patient satisfaction throughout a suitable period.

The use of an intraoral scanner was a trial to facilitate the customization of locator attachment components in a simple, feasible & accurate method [27].

Discussion of results

Oral rehabilitation with implant-assisted overdentures in totally edentulous mandibles presents a wide-ranging treatment modality not only based on the variable number of implants utilized but also relied on the assortment of different retentive options supplied [28].

the use of implant-assisted overdentures applying the Locator systems appears to be one of the ideal treatments in cases of edentulousim accompanied by retention problems while using a traditional removable prosthesis, especially in the mandible [29].

Treatment of a mandibular edentulism using two osseointegrated implants to support a mandibular overdenture with locator attachments is a recognizable treatment modality [30].

Throughout the recall periods of all patients, there were no complaints from the installed implant and all the patients followed the prescribed oral hygiene measures to overcome any hazardous effects which might influence the results of this study [31].

Several studies informed that the patient's quality of life expressed improvement by the increased retention and stability of their implantassisted overdentures [32].

Attachment adjustment was found to be the most frequent complication in implant overdenture [33]. The consequence of the angulation of the implant in overdenture retention or any possible deterioration appeared in the components of these systems by attachment and dis-attachment of the overdenture. These variables under review revealed the nature of complications most frequently associated [34]. With the utilization of customized locator attachments, the above-mentioned problem could be avoided and obtaining satisfactory implant parallelism. This in turn, enhanced the prosthetic maintenance of the whole prosthesis [35].

Both groups exhibited reduced retention values over the whole study period, which might be attributed to the wear of the retentive nylon inserts. But it was found that; group A revealed a higher insignificant difference than group B represented as a P-value >0.05 [36].

For prosthetic maintenance along twelve months follow-up, group B revealed a lower insignificant different incidence of prosthetic complications than group A, which might be attributed to better parallelism of customized locator attachments and less wear occurring.

Conclusions

Customized locator attachments are highly recommended to retain mandibular overdentures, as they exhibited better maintenance values and more wear resistance with minimal loss of retention. Moreover, can be utilized by any presented implant system in the market, in addition, Patients were completely satisfied with their customized locators retaining their implant-supported overdentures.

Conflict of Interest

This clinical study was self-funded by the authors, with no conflict of interest.

References

1. Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM, Van’t Hof MA (2003) Comparison of implant-retained mandibular overdentures and conventional complete dentures: a 10-year prospective study of clinical aspects and patient satisfaction. Int J OralMaxillofac Implants 18: 879-885. [Ref.]
2. Naert I, Alsaadi G, Quirynen M (2004) Prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction with two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a 10-year randomized clinical study. Int J Prosthodont 17: 401-410. [Ref.]
3. Cehreli MC, Uysal S, Akca K (2010) Marginal bone level changes and prosthetic maintenance of mandibular overdentures supported by 2 implants; A 5-year randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 12: 114-121. [Ref.]
4. Preiskel HW (1996) Bar attachments. In: Preiskel HW (eds) Overdentures made easy: a guide to implant and root supported prostheses. Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc., London, 105-137.
5. Kern JS, Kern T, Wolfart S, Heussen N (2015) A systematic review and meta-analysis of removable and fixed implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws: post-loading implant loss. Clin Oral Implants Res 27: 174-195. [Ref.]
6. Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM, Van't Hof MA, Geertman ME, Van Oort RP (1999) Implant-retained mandibular overdentures compared with complete dentures; a 5-year follow-up. Study of clinical aspects and patient satisfaction. Clin Oral Implants Res 10: 238-244. [Ref.]
7. Davis DM, Packer ME (1999) Mandibular overdentures stabilized by Astra tech implants with either ball attachments or magnets; 5-year results. Intern. J Prosthodont 12: 222-229. [Ref.]
8. Boerrigter EM, Geertman ME, Van Oort RP, Bouma J, Raghoebar GM, et al. (1995) Patient satisfaction with implant-retained mandibular overdentures; A comparison with new complete dentures not retained by implants–a multicentre randomized clinical trial. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 33: 282-288. [Ref.]
9. Cooper LF, Moriarty JD, Guckes AD, Klee LB, Smith RG, et al. (2008) Five-year prospective evaluation of mandibular overdentures retained by two microthreaded, TiOblast nonsplinted implants and retentive ball anchors. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 23: 696-704. [Ref.]
10. Esfandiari S, Lund JP, Penrod JR, Savard A, Thomason JM, et al. (2009) Implant overdentures for edentulous elders; Study of patient preference. Gerodontology 26: 3-10. [Ref.]
11. Pera P, Bassi F, Schierano G, Appendino P, Preti G (1998) mplant anchored complete mandibular denture: evaluation of masticatory efficiency, oral function and degree of satisfaction. J Oral Rehabil 25: 462-467. [Ref.]
12. van Kampen FM, van der Bilt A, Cune MS, Fontijn-Tekamp FA, Bosman F (2004) Masticatory function with implant-supported overdentures. J Dent Res 83: 708-711. [Ref.]
13. Wismeijer D, Vermeeren JI, van Waas MA (1992) Patient satisfaction with overdentures supported by one-stage TPS implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 7: 51-55. [Ref.]
14. Nguyen CT, Masri R, Driscoll CF, Romberg E (2010) The effect of denture cleansing solutions on the retention of pink Locator attachments: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont 19: 226-230. [Ref.]
15. Seo YH, Bae EB, Kim JW, Lee SH, Yun MJ, et al. (2016) Clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures via Locator implant attachment and Locator bar attachment. J Adv Prosthodont 8: 313- 320. [Ref.]
16. Trakas T, Michalakis K, Kang K, Hirayama H (2006) Attachment systems for implant retained overdentures: a literature review. Implant Dent 15: 24-34. [Ref.]
17. Kleis WK, Kammerer PW, Hartmann S, Al-Nawas B, Wagner W (2010) A comparison of three different attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: one-year report. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 12: 209-218. [Ref.]
18. Chung KH, Chung CY, Cagna DR, Cronin RJ Jr (2004) Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont 13: 221-226. [Ref.]
19. Takeshita S, Kanazawa M, Minakuchi S (2011) Stress analysis of mandibular two-implant overdenture with different attachment systems. Dent Mater J 30: 928-934. [Ref.]
20. Chikunov I, Doan P, Vahidi F (2008) Implant-retained partial overdenture with resilient attachments. J Prosthodont 17: 141-148. [Ref.]
21. Berg E, Johnsen TB, Ingebretsen R (1985) Social variables and patient acceptance of complete dentures. A study of patients attending a dental school. Acta Odontol Scand 43: 199-203. [Ref.]
22. Hirsch B, Levin B, Tiber N (1972) Effect of patient involvement and aesthetic preference on denture acceptance. J Prosthet Dent 28: 127-132. [Ref.]
23. Kotkin H (1985) Diagnostic significance of denture complaints. J Prosthet Dent 53: 73-77. [Ref.]
24. Allen F, McMillan A (2002) Food selection and perceptions of chewing ability following provision of implant and conventional prostheses in complete denture wearers. Clin Oral Implants Res 13: 320-326. [Ref.]
25. Sheiham A, Steele JG, Marcenes W, Finch S, Walls AW (1999) The impact of oral health on the stated ability to eat certain foods, findings from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey of Older People in Great Britain. Gerodontology 16: 11-20. [Ref.]
26. Heydecke G, Thomason JM, Lund JP, Feine JS (2005) The impact of conventional and implant supported prostheses on social and sexual activities in edentulous adults Results from a randomized trial 2 months after treatment. J Dent 33: 649-657. [Ref.]
27. Akoglu B, Ucankale M, Ozkan Y, Kulak-Ozkan Y (2011) Five-year treatment outcomes with three brands of implants supporting mandibular overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 26: 188- 194. [Ref.]
28. Passia N, Wolfart S, Kern M (2015) Six-year clinical outcome of single implant-retained mandibular overdentures--a pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res 26: 1191-1194. [Ref.]
29. Semper W, Heberer S, Mehrhof J, Schink T, Nelson K (2010) Effects of repeated manual disassembly and reassembly on the positional stability of various implant-abutment complexes: an experimental study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25: 86-94. [Ref.]
30. Awad MA, Lund JP, Dufresne E, Feine JS (2003) Comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-retained overdentures and conventional dentures among middle-aged edentulous patients: satisfaction and functional assessment. Int J Prosthodont 16: 117-122. [Ref.]
31. Shor A, Goto Y, Shor K (2007) Mandibular two-implant-retained overdenture: prosthetic design and fabrication protocol. Compend Contin Educ Dent 28: 80-88. [Ref.]
32. Burns DR, Unger JW, Elswick RK Jr, Beck DA (1995) Prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures: Part I--Retention, stability, and tissue response. J Prosthet Dent 73: 354-363. [Ref.]
33. Thomason JM (2002) The McGill Consensus Statement on Overdentures. Mandibular 2-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 10: 95-96. [Ref.]
34. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, et al. (2002) The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as the first-choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Gerodontology 19: 3-4. [Ref.]
35. Karabuda C, Yaltirik M, Bayraktar M (2008) A clinical comparison of prosthetic complications of implant-supported overdentures with different attachment systems. Implant Dent 17: 74-81. [Ref.]
36. Celik G, Uludag B (2007) Photoelastic stress analysis of various retention mechanisms on 3-implant-retained mandibular overdentures. J Prosthet Dent 97: 229-235. [Ref.]

Download Provisional PDF Here

 

Article Information

Article Type: RESEARCH ARTICLE

Citation: Ahmed MHM, Elkhadem AH (2022) Patient Satisfaction and Maintenance Requirements of Classical Implant Locators versus Customized Attachments in Mandibular Implant-Retained Overdentures. Int J Dent Oral Health 8(4): dx.doi.org/10.16966/2378-7090.401

Copyright: © 2022 Ahmed MHM, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Publication history: 

Received date: 09 Nov, 2022

Accepted date: 16 Nov, 2022

Published date: 22 Nov, 2022