Longitudinal Assessment of Denture Maintenance Needs in an Overdenture Population.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the longitudinal denture maintenance needs of a tooth-supported overdenture population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective cohort study was composed of patients who had received tooth-supported overdentures from 1974 to 1994 in the Department of Prosthodontics, University of Iowa. There were 272 persons with 662 abutments who fulfilled the inclusion criteria. To simplify analysis and reduce the number of confounding variables, only those participants wearing complete maxillary dentures and opposing complete mandibular overdentures supported by teeth #22 and #27 were included in this analysis. The denture maintenance needs of these participants were identified and related to age, gender, length of time wearing overdentures, number of medications, and denture-wearing habits. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were used for the statistical analysis (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Of the 91 participants (mean age = 59.5 ± 10.1 years; 63.7% male) who fulfilled the inclusion criteria at baseline, 48.4% took 1 to 3 medications daily, and 84.6% wore their dentures day and night. The percentages of participants who needed one or more of the following denture treatments were: 91.2% denture base adjustments, 76.9% laboratory processed relines, 61.5% denture remakes, 33% laboratory remount and occlusal adjustment, 22% repaired bases, and 19.8% needed denture teeth replaced. Bivariate analyses indicated that participants who were 65 years and older needed more denture adjustments than patients younger than 65 years (p = 0.0343). Participants who had worn overdentures for more than 5 years were more likely to require denture remakes (p = 0.0304). Participants who wore their dentures only during the day were less likely to require repairs (p = 0.0403). Participants who did not take any medications were significantly less likely to require denture base repairs (p = 0.0258). For the 35 participants who returned for recalls at all 4 time points, males were more likely to need denture teeth repaired or replaced (p = 0.0335) and those aged 50 to 64 were more likely to need 2 or more adjustments (p = 0.0311). No overdenture abutments were lost by the participants in this study. CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of this study, age, medication usage, denture-wearing habits, and age of the overdentures were significant factors associated with denture maintenance needs. Persons wearing overdentures need regular recalls, because they have continuing maintenance needs.

Use of implant-supported prostheses in edentulous mandibles among prosthodontists in Sweden.

The aim of this study was to investigate the production of mandibular implant-supported fixed and removable prostheses among prosthodontic specialists in Sweden and to compare the results with findings in a similar study made in 2001 (17). Questionnaires regarding treatment with mandibular implant prostheses during 20011 were mailed to all specialists in prosthodontics in Sweden (n = 156, according to available data). Of the 156 questionnaires, 129 (83%) were returned and of those 114 were completed. The reported number of treatments with mandibular implant-supported prostheses varied much among the specialists. Fixed implant prostheses were more common than overdentures (means 11 and 3, median values 8 and 2, respectively). However, the range was large for both alternatives. Ten (9%) of the specialists reported no treatment with fixed implant prostheses while 29 (25%) had not made any implant overdenture during 2011. The most common anchorage system for overdentures in 2011 (as well as in 2001) was two un-splinted implants with ball attachments or Locator abutments. The most common reasons for choosing overdenture treatment instead of a fixed implant prosthesis in 2011 were the reduced cost and the patient's main wish to improve denture retention. A majority of the prosthodontists (58%) reported that patients with implant overdentures were as satisfied as those with fixed implant-supported prostheses, whereas 40% claimed they were less satisfied. Two respondents (2%) considered that overdenture patients were more satisfied than those with a fixed prosthesis. It can be concluded that the general attitude among Swedish prosthodontists towards implant overdentures has not changed much during the 10-year period between the present and the previous investigation.An overdenture is still a seldom-used option in implant treatment of patients with edentulous mandibles in Sweden. Instead, a fixed implant-supported prosthesis continues to be the preferred option,

Low-cost implant overdenture option for patients treated in a predoctoral dental school curriculum.

In an effort to make the implant overdenture more affordable for patients, a pricing package at the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Dentistry was established. This package includes two implants, two dentures (upper and lower), and two implant abutments, all for $975. It is known as the "2-2-2" implant program. One concern regarding the program was whether patients would complete overdenture treatment or simply receive implants at this relatively low cost and have the implants restored outside the school. The purpose of this retrospective chart review was to determine how many patients in 2004 received implants as part of this program and how many of these patients completed overdenture treatment. Other data (age, distance from school, number of teeth at start of treatment, and gender) were collected to identify variables that might be associated with greater likelihood of completing overdenture treatment. In 2004, fifty-one patients received 102 implants as part of this program. Two patients had a failed implant prior to restoration (two of 102 implants), and one patient was referred to graduate prosthodontics for restoration. Of the remaining forty-eight patients, forty-one completed overdenture treatment (85 percent), and seven (15 percent) were lost to follow-up. The mean age of patients receiving this treatment was 60.7 years. The mean distance traveled to the school was 70.7 miles. While no variables showed significant predictive value, point estimates (estimate of the odds ratio) suggest that older patients and patients who travel greater distance to the school were less likely to complete treatment. The low-cost implant overdenture has been an important addition to our curriculum. The majority of patients who receive implants as part of this program complete overdenture treatment.

A survey of the use of mandibular implant overdentures in 10 countries.

PURPOSE: This preliminary international survey compared provision of implant-retained overdentures to fixed implant-supported prostheses for edentulous mandibles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Questionnaires based on a 2001 Swedish study were sent to prosthodontists and specialist clinics in nine additional countries. RESULTS: Response rate varied from 53% to 100% in 10 national surveys and should allow careful comparison of results. The relationship between implant overdentures and fixed implant-supported prostheses in treatment of edentulous mandibles varied much; in Sweden, the proportion of overdentures was 12%, whereas it was 93% in The Netherlands. In all countries, the most common reason for choice of the overdenture was reduced cost. In all but two countries, the majority of respondents thought that patients with implant overdentures were equally or more satisfied with overdentures as those with fixed implant-supported prostheses. CONCLUSION: There were great differences among the 10 countries in choice of implant treatment of the edentulous mandible. The relative proportion of mandibular overdentures to fixed prostheses was low in Sweden and Greece and varied from one to two thirds in the other countries, except The Netherlands.

Use of mandibular implant overdentures: treatment policy in prosthodontic specialist clinics in Sweden.

The aim was to examine the use of mandibular implant overdentures in Swedish prosthodontic specialist clinics. Questionnaires related to treatment with mandibular implant overdentures during 2001 were sent to the heads of the 30 prosthodontic specialist clinics of the Public Dental Health Service in Sweden. Completed questionnaires were received from 28 (93%). The number of treatments with mandibular implant overdentures varied much among the clinics (0 to 22). Seven clinics had not performed any such treatment, and the median number was 2. The number of fixed implant-supported prostheses was much higher (median value 17, range 4 to 100). The correlation between the number of implant overdentures and fixed implant-supported prostheses in edentulous mandibles was weak (r = 0.33; P = 0.10). The most common anchorage system was ball attachments on two unsplinted implants. The most common reason for the choice of the overdenture treatment was the reduced cost, whereas the patient's main wish to improve denture retention came next. The question whether the demand for implant overdentures had increased during the last few years, was answered with "no" by 19, with "yes" by 5 and with "don't know" by 4 clinics. All but one responded that their attitude to implant overdentures had not changed after the introduction of free pricing in Swedish dentistry. It can be concluded that compared to the rapidly increasing international use of mandibular implant overdentures, this treatment of edentulous patients is rare in Sweden, where fixed implant-supported prostheses still are predominant.

A nationwide evaluative study on implant-retained overdentures.

OBJECTIVES: In the Netherlands, dental implants have been included in the National Dental Insurance Scheme (NDIS) since 1989. Nowadays, out-of-pocket expenditure is low, making implant treatment financially feasible for a large group of edentulous, potential implant candidates. Treatment can be performed by both oral surgeons and general dentists. Results of implant treatment in the literature are usually obtained in academic and specialized centers. In contrast to this, the present study evaluates the quantitative and qualitative aspects of rehabilitation with oral implants in combination with an overdenture when applied on a nationwide scale. METHODS: For this purpose all patients (n = 5410) treated between January 1989 and July 1992 were extensively documented pre-operatively, implant patients (n = 429) were clinically investigated by two independent observers and the effect of treatment on denture complaints was assessed by means of a questionnaire (n = 460). RESULTS: Only a small proportion of the potential pool of implant candidates is actually being treated, to a constant number of approximately 2000 patients a year. The selected patients have major denture problems and have received relatively high levels of prosthetic care during the last decade. Clinical results are comparable to those reported in the literature, implant survival after 3 years for the lower jaw being 96.3% and for the upper jaw 70.4%. Oral hygiene was frequently considered suboptimal and seen in conjunction with marginal inflammation of the peri-implant mucosa. Subjective results were excellent, patients were quite satisfied with the improvements in the comfort and esthetics of their lower denture. CONCLUSIONS: Implant-overdenture treatment, within the guidelines and regulations set by the Dutch NDIS, is a safe and effective treatment alternative, in particular for the rehabilitation of the lower jaw.