Patients’ Satisfaction with Mandibular Overdentures Retained Using Mini-Implants: An Up-to-16-Year Cross-Sectional Study

4Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Patients with edentulism often have an impaired functional, phonetic, and esthetic status, resulting in poor quality of life; hence, the mandibular overdenture has been considered the standard implant treatment for such patients. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the effectiveness of mandibular overdentures retained using mini-implants on patient-reported satisfaction and their long-term survival. Methods: We searched patients’ medical records for eligible subjects, screening and inviting patients who received a mandibular overdenture anchored on mini-implants over ten years ago. We used a numerical rating scale from 0 (the worst) to 10 (the best) to assess four aspects: comfort, retention, chewing ability, and speaking ability before and after having mini-implants. We carried out Kaplan–Meier analysis to assess their survival. Results: Forty-eight elderly patients who were medically compromised and had a mandibular overdenture anchored on four permucosal mini-implants were included. All patient-reported satisfaction (comfort, retention, chewing ability, and speaking ability) was significantly improved after supporting mandibular overdentures with mini-implants (p-values < 0.05), with retention and chewing ability being the most substantially improved. The 10- and 15-year mini-implant survival rates were both 97.9%. Conclusions: Mandibular overdentures with mini-implants can be considered a valid and practical alternative to conventional implant-supported overdentures in patients with atrophic ridges, medically compromised, and the elderly.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Scarano, A., Inchingolo, F., Alla, I., Lorusso, F., Tari, S. R., Gehrke, S. A., & Khater, A. G. A. (2024). Patients’ Satisfaction with Mandibular Overdentures Retained Using Mini-Implants: An Up-to-16-Year Cross-Sectional Study. Prosthesis, 6(2), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis6020019

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free