Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020 Mar/Apr;35(2):423-431. doi: 10.11607/jomi.7869.
The aim of this crossover study was to evaluate patient satisfaction and oral health related-quality of life (OHRQoL) with different connectors used for implant-retained overdentures in subjects with resorbed mandibles.
Eighteen edentulous patients with atrophied mandibular bone received traditional maxillary and mandibular dentures (control). After 3 months, two implants were inserted in the canine regions. Three months later, each patient received the following overdentures using a crossover design: (1) bar overdentures, (2) telescopic overdentures, and (3) stud overdentures. Patient satisfaction (primary outcome) was measured by visual analog scale (VAS). OHRQoL (secondary outcome) was measured by oral health impact profile (OHIP-14). Questions of VAS and OHIP-14 were evaluated after 3 months of using conventional dentures, bar overdentures, telescopic overdentures, and stud overdentures.
For all questionnaires, conventional dentures recorded significantly lower satisfaction than implant overdentures. Stud overdentures showed significantly higher satisfaction with maxillary denture comfort, self-consciousness, and feeling that the prosthesis is a part of the patient compared with other attachments. Bar and telescopic overdentures showed higher satisfaction during biting of hard and soft foods, while telescopic and stud overdentures showed higher satisfaction with oral hygiene. No significant differences between attachments regarding other VAS and OHIP-14 questions were noted.
Implant overdentures for subjects with mandibular bone resorption improved patient satisfaction and OHRQoL compared with traditional dentures regardless of the form of attachments. However, studs are more advantageous in terms of comfort with maxillary overdentures, self-consciousness, and feeling that the prosthesis is a part of the patient. Bar and telescopic attachments had more satisfaction during biting of soft and hard foods, while telescopic and stud attachments had more satisfaction with oral hygiene.
本交叉研究旨在评估不同连接体用于下颌骨萎缩患者种植覆盖义齿的患者满意度和口腔健康相关生活质量（OHRQoL）。
18 名下颌骨萎缩的无牙患者接受传统的上颌和下颌义齿（对照组）。3 个月后，在犬齿区域植入 2 个种植体。3 个月后，每位患者使用交叉设计接受以下覆盖义齿：（1）杆式覆盖义齿，（2）套筒式覆盖义齿，和（3）球帽式覆盖义齿。患者满意度（主要结果）通过视觉模拟量表（VAS）进行测量。OHRQoL（次要结果）通过口腔健康影响简表（OHIP-14）进行测量。在使用传统义齿、杆式覆盖义齿、套筒式覆盖义齿和球帽式覆盖义齿 3 个月后评估 VAS 和 OHIP-14 的问题。
对于所有问卷，传统义齿的满意度明显低于种植覆盖义齿。与其他附件相比，球帽式覆盖义齿在佩戴上颌义齿舒适度、自我意识和感觉义齿是患者自身一部分方面的满意度更高。杆式和套筒式覆盖义齿在咀嚼硬、软食物时的满意度更高，而套筒式和球帽式覆盖义齿在口腔卫生方面的满意度更高。在其他 VAS 和 OHIP-14 问题方面，附件之间没有显著差异。
与传统义齿相比，下颌骨萎缩患者使用种植覆盖义齿可提高患者满意度和 OHRQoL，无论附件形式如何。然而，球帽在佩戴上颌覆盖义齿时舒适度、自我意识和感觉义齿是患者自身一部分方面更有优势。杆式和套筒式附件在咀嚼软、硬食物时的满意度更高，而套筒式和球帽式附件在口腔卫生方面的满意度更高。
