Zhou Huan, Jiao Yang, Ma Chu-Fan, Wang Chao, Zhao San-Jun, Tian Min, Tay Franklin R, Chen Ji-Hua
National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, State Key Laboratory of Military Stomatology, Shaanxi Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Stomatology, the Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Department of Stomatology, the 7 Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Ann Transl Med. 2020 Nov;8(21):1360. doi: 10.21037/atm-20-2531.
Implant-retained mandibular overdentures (IODs) represent an effective and reliable treatment modality for edentulous patients. The present retrospective study compared the clinical outcomes of IODs using bar attachment (BA) system with those using magnetic attachment (MA) system after functioning for up to 5 years.
Human subjects treated with IODs between 01-01-2010 and 12-31-2014 were identified from patient records. Of the 54 subjects who met the inclusion criteria, 48 subjects including 26 treated with BA-IODs and 22 with MA-IODs (96 mandibular implants) were recruited for the study. The implant units and prostheses were evaluated individually for peri-implant health. Prosthetic complications and maintenance during follow-up were recorded. The subjects responded to the visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaires for evaluation of patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL).
The survival rates of the implants and prostheses were 96.9% and 95.8%, respectively, over a mean observation period of 48±11.3 (range, 13-64) months. Peri-implant probing depth (PPD) and plaque index (PI) were significantly better for the MA group compared with the BA group (P<0.05), while marginal bone loss (MBL) and sulcus bleeding index (SBI) showed no significant differences (P>0.05). Prosthetic complications and maintenance were attachment-dependent. Most recruited subjects were satisfied with their prostheses. There was no statistically significant difference regarding general patient satisfaction or OHRQoL between the two groups (P>0.05). Nevertheless, patients complained that the BA-IODs were significantly more difficult to clean than the MA-IODs (P<0.05).
IODs have an ideal medium-term outcome irrespective of the attachment design. It is recommended that oral hygiene instructions and regular clinical examination be given to subjects wearing IODs.
种植体支持的下颌覆盖义齿(IODs)是无牙颌患者一种有效且可靠的治疗方式。本回顾性研究比较了使用杆附着(BA)系统和磁性附着(MA)系统的IODs在使用长达5年后的临床效果。
从患者记录中确定2010年1月1日至2014年12月31日期间接受IODs治疗的人类受试者。在符合纳入标准的54名受试者中,招募了48名受试者(包括26名接受BA-IODs治疗和22名接受MA-IODs治疗,共96颗下颌种植体)进行研究。对种植体单元和修复体的种植体周围健康状况进行单独评估。记录随访期间的修复并发症和维护情况。受试者对视觉模拟量表(VAS)和口腔健康影响概况问卷做出回应,以评估患者满意度和口腔健康相关生活质量(OHRQoL)。
在平均48±11.3(范围13 - 64)个月的观察期内,种植体和修复体的存活率分别为96.9%和95.8%。MA组的种植体周围探诊深度(PPD)和菌斑指数(PI)显著优于BA组(P<0.05),而边缘骨丢失(MBL)和龈沟出血指数(SBI)无显著差异(P>0.05)。修复并发症和维护情况取决于附着方式。大多数招募的受试者对其修复体满意。两组之间在总体患者满意度或OHRQoL方面无统计学显著差异(P>0.05)。然而,患者抱怨BA-IODs比MA-IODs清洁难度大得多(P<0.05)。
无论附着设计如何,IODs都有理想的中期效果。建议对佩戴IODs的受试者进行口腔卫生指导和定期临床检查。