Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Dent. 2016 Dec;55:92-98. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.10.008. Epub 2016 Oct 18.

Implant-supported mandibular removable partial dentures; patient-based outcome measures in relation to implant position.

Author information

1
University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, Groningen, Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, Groningen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: c.jensen@umcg.nl.
2
University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Groningen, The Netherlands.
3
University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, Groningen, Department of Public and Individual Oral Health, Groningen, The Netherlands.
4
University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, Groningen, Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, Groningen, The Netherlands; University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Groningen, The Netherlands.
5
University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, Groningen, Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, Groningen, The Netherlands; St. Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, Department of Oral-Maxillofacial Surgery, Prosthodontics and Special Dental Care, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

To assess the benefits of implant support to Removable Partial Dentures (RPD) in patients with a bilateral free-ending situation in the mandible and to determine the most favorable implant position: the premolar (PM) or the molar (M) region.

METHODS:

Thirty subjects with a bilateral unbounded posterior saddle received 2 PM and 2M implants. A new RPD was placed. Implant support was provided 3 months later. Two PM implants supported the RPD. After 3 months the 2M implants were used or vice versa. Outcome measures included oral health related quality of life (OHIP-NL49), general health status (SF-36), contentment assessed on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the number of hours that the RPD was worn. Data were collected prior to treatment, 3 months after having functioned with a new RPD and after 3 and 6 months with implant support. Finally, patients expressed their preferred implant position.

RESULTS:

The general health status (SF-36) was not influenced. OHIP-NL49 values and mean wearing-time were statistical significantly more favorable for ISRPD's, regardless of the implant position. Per day, the ISRPD's were worn 2-3h more than the unsupported new RPD. Patients' expectations were met as the VAS-scores of anticipated and realized contentment did not reach a statistical significant level (p>0.05). VAS scores for ISRPD's with M implant support were higher than for PM implant support. Finally, 56.7% of subjects preferred the M implant support, 13.3% expressed no preference and 30% opted for PM implant support.

CONCLUSIONS:

Mandibular implant support favorably influences oral health related patient-based outcome measures in patients with a bilateral free-ending situation. The majority of patients prefer the implant support to be in the molar region.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE:

Patients with a bilateral free-ending situation in the mandible opposed by a maxillary denture benefit from implant support to their mandibular removable partial denture. Most patients prefer this support to be in the molar region.

KEYWORDS:

Patient outcomes; Quality of life; Randomized controlled crossover clinical trial; Removable partial denture

PMID:
27769657
DOI:
10.1016/j.jdent.2016.10.008
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center