Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
J Dent. 2012 Nov;40(11):1018-23. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.08.011. Epub 2012 Aug 24.

Patient satisfaction and masticatory efficiency of single implant-retained mandibular overdentures using the stud and magnetic attachments.

Author information

  • 1Zhengzhou Hospital of Stomatology, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

To study patient satisfaction and masticatory efficiency of single implant-retained mandibular overdentures using the stud and magnetic attachments in a randomized clinical trial with a crossover design.

METHODS:

Patients received a single implant placed in the midline of the mandible and either a stud (Locator) or a magnetic (Magfit) attachment, assigned at random. Patient satisfaction, including patient comfort, speech, chewing ability and retention, and masticatory efficiency measured by chewing peanuts, were assessed before and 3 months after attachment insertion. Patient satisfaction and masticatory efficiency were evaluated again 3 months after insertion of the alternate attachment bodies. The outcomes were compared before and after insertion of the attachments and between the two types of attachments using Wilcoxon signed rank tests.

RESULTS:

Patient overall satisfaction, comfort, speech, chewing ability, and retention improved significantly after insertion of both types of attachment bodies (p<0.05). Masticatory efficiencies also increased in both the Locator and the Magfit groups (p<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in patient overall satisfaction, comfort, speech, and retention between the two types of attachments (p>0.05). The Locator attachments performed better in perceived chewing ability than the Magfit (p<0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference in masticatory efficiency between the two attachment types (p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS:

Clinical outcomes were significantly improved in single implant-retained mandibular overdentures using either the Locator or the Magfit magnetic attachments. There was no difference in masticatory efficiency between the two attachment types.

Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

PMID:
22925922
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk