Salem Sherihan Hanafy, AlSourori Ali Abdulghani, Mostafa Marwa Hassan
Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics, National Research Center, Cairo, Egypt.
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Ahram Canadian University, 6th of October City, Egypt.
Dent Med Probl. 2024 Nov-Dec;61(6):821-828. doi: 10.17219/dmp/169186.
The present study was performed to rehabilitate maxillary single denture cases with implantretained telescopic or ball-and-socket attachments, and to evaluate the validity of two-implantretained maxillary overdentures as a treatment approach in the maxillary arch.
The aim of the present study was to evaluate patient satisfaction in maxillary single denture wearers with 2 different attachment systems (telescopic attachment vs. ball-and-socket attachment).
A total of 18 completely edentulous maxillary ridge patients (45-60 years old; mean age: 53 years) were selected for this study. Maxillary single dentures were constructed for all the patients. Group 1 patients received 2 implants with a telescopic attachment and group 2 patients received 2 implants with a ball-and-socket attachment. Patient satisfaction with the implant-retained maxillary single denture was evaluated after insertion, and 3 months after the delivery of each implant-retained maxillary single overdenture.
All 18 patients completed the study. After 3 months, the telescopic group showed significant improvement in terms of comfort, chewing, handling, and overall satisfaction, and in the ball-and-socket group, significant improvement was recorded for appearance only. When comparing the 2 groups, after insertion, group 1 showed significantly better results for the 'handling' and 'hygiene' parameters, whereas group 2 showed a significantly better mean score for the 'appearance' parameter. After 3 months, group 1 showed significantly better results for the 'comfort', 'handling', 'hygiene', and 'overall satisfaction' parameters, and group 1 proved significantly better in terms of 'appearance' and 'speech' parameters.
Maxillary single dentures with a telescopic attachment showed an advantage over those with a ball-and-socket attachment regarding patient satisfaction. Concerning the implant number, twoimplantretained maxillary overdentures can be considered a promising approach for patients from developing countries.
本研究旨在使用种植体固位的套筒冠或球窝附着体修复上颌单颌义齿病例,并评估两颗种植体固位的上颌覆盖义齿作为上颌牙弓治疗方法的有效性。
本研究的目的是评估使用两种不同附着系统(套筒冠附着体与球窝附着体)的上颌单颌义齿佩戴者的患者满意度。
本研究共选取18名全口无牙上颌牙槽嵴患者(年龄45 - 60岁;平均年龄:53岁)。为所有患者制作上颌单颌义齿。第1组患者植入2颗种植体并采用套筒冠附着体,第2组患者植入2颗种植体并采用球窝附着体。在每种种植体固位的上颌单颌覆盖义齿植入后以及交付后3个月,评估患者对种植体固位上颌单颌义齿的满意度。
所有18名患者均完成研究。3个月后,套筒冠组在舒适度、咀嚼、操作和总体满意度方面有显著改善,而球窝组仅在外观方面有显著改善。比较两组时,植入后,第1组在“操作”和“卫生”参数方面显示出明显更好的结果,而第2组在“外观”参数方面显示出明显更高的平均分。3个月后,第1组在“舒适度”“操作”“卫生”和“总体满意度”参数方面显示出明显更好的结果,并且在“外观”和“语音”参数方面第1组也明显更好。
就患者满意度而言,带有套筒冠附着体的上颌单颌义齿比带有球窝附着体的上颌单颌义齿具有优势。关于种植体数量,两颗种植体固位的上颌覆盖义齿对于发展中国家的患者可被视为一种有前景的方法。