Quality of life, patient preferences, and implant survival and success of tapered implant-retained mandibular overdentures as a function of the attachment system
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
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.
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.
참고문헌 (35)
- Nowjack-Raymer RE, "Numbers of natural teeth, diet, and nutritional status in US adults", J Dent Res, 86, pp.1171~1175 (2007)
- Hilgert JB, "Oral status and its association with obesity in Southern Brazilian older people", Gerodontology, 26, pp.46~52 (2009)
- Lowe G, "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, 56, pp.694~700 (2003)
- Holm-Pedersen P, "Tooth loss and subsequent disability and mortality in old age", J Am Geriatr Soc, 56, pp.429~435 (2008)
- Carlsson GE, "Facts and fallacies : an evidence base for complete dentures", Dent Update, 33, pp.134~136 (2006)
- Tallgren A, "The continuing reduction of the residual alveolar ridges in complete denture wearers : a mixed-longitudinal study covering 25 years", J Prosthet Dent, 27, pp.120~132 (1972)
- Sharka R, "Oral health-related quality of life and satisfaction of edentulous patients using conventional complete dentures and implant-retained overdentures : an umbrella systematic review", Gerodontology, 36, pp.195~204 (2019)
- van der Bilt A, "Mandibular implant-supported overdentures and oral function", Clin Oral Implants Res, 21, pp.1209~1213 (2010)
- Buser D, "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, 14, pp.839~851 (2012)
- Kodama N, "Efficacy of mandibular 2-implant overdenture : an updated meta-analysis on patient-based outcomes", JDR Clin Trans Res, 1, pp.20~30 (2016)
- Feine JS, "The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients", Gerodontology, 19, pp.3~4 (2002)
- Thomason JM, "Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients--the York Consensus Statement", Br Dent J, 207, pp.185~186 (2009)
- Dard M, "Integrative performance analysis of a novel bone level tapered implant", Adv Dent Res, 28, pp.28~33 (2016)
- 김하영, "Attachment systems for mandibular implant overdentures: a systematic review", The Journal of Advanced of Prosthodontics, 4(4), pp.197~203 (2012), 대한치과보철학회[DOI]
- Geckili O, "Locator attachments as an alternative to ball attachments in 2-implant retained mandibular overdentures", J Can Dent Assoc, 73, pp.679~682 (2007)
- Bilhan H, "A quality-of-life comparison between self-aligning and ball attachment systems for 2-implant-retained mandibular overdentures", J Oral Implantol, 37(Spec), pp.167~173 (2011)
- Krennmair G, "Retention components used in implant supported restorations", Dtsch Zahnarztl Z, 69, pp.326~335 (2014)
- Kleis WK, "A comparison of three different attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures : one-year report", Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 12, pp.209~218 (2010)
- Krennmair G, "Patient preference and satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or locator attachments : a crossover clinical trial", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 27, pp.1560~1568 (2012)
- Bilhan H, "Maintenance requirements associated with mandibular implant overdentures : clinical results after first year of service", J Oral Implantol, 37, pp.697~704 (2011)
- Passia N, "Long-term retention behaviour of resin matrix attachment systems for overdentures", J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 57, pp.88~94 (2016)
- Ellis JS, "Patient satisfaction with two designs of implant supported removable overdentures; ball attachment and magnets", Clin Oral Implants Res, 20, pp.1293~1298 (2009)
- Lekholm U, "Tissue integrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry", pp.199~209 (1985), Quintessence Publishing Company
- Doyle DJ, "American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification" (2022), StatPearls Publishing
- Scherer MD, "Comparison of retention and stability of implant-retained overdentures based upon implant number and distribution", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 28, pp.1619~1628 (2013)
- Buser D, "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, 1, pp.33~40 (1990)
- Slade GD, "Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile", Community Dent Oral Epidemiol, 25, pp.284~290 (1997)
- EuroQol Group, "EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life", Health Policy, 16, pp.199~208 (1990)
- Brooks R, "EuroQol : the current state of play", Health Policy, 37, pp.53~72 (1996)
- Dard M, "The standardised in-line clinical case series : a new concept for real-world evidence in dentistry", J Dent Oral Health, 3, pp.073~ (2017)
- Cune M, "Mandibular overdentures retained by two implants : 10-year results from a crossover clinical trial comparing ball-socket and bar-clip attachments", Int J Prosthodont, 23, pp.310~317 (2010)
- Burns DR, "Randomized, prospective, clinical evaluation of prosthodontic modalities for mandibular implant overdenture treatment", J Prosthet Dent, 106, pp.12~22 (2011)
- Pisani M, "A qualitative study on patients’ perceptions of two types of attachments for implant overdentures", J Oral Implantol, 43, pp.476~481 (2017)
- Kern JS, "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, pp.174~195 (2016)
- Salman A, "Immediate versus delayed loading of mandibular implant-retained overdentures : a 60-month follow-up of a randomized clinical trial", J Clin Periodontol, 46, pp.863~871 (2019)
