4.1 Article

The influence of mandibular implant-retained overdentures in masticatory efficiency

Journal

GERODONTOLOGY
Volume 29, Issue 2, Pages E650-E655

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2011.00539.x

Keywords

complete denture; overdenture; masticatory function; patient satisfaction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate the masticatory efficiency of patients rehabilitated with conventional dentures (CDs) or implant-retained mandibular overdentures. Background: Despite the evident benefits of implants on mastication as assessed by subjective patient-based outcomes, the extent of implant overdenture treatment effect on food comminution is not well established. Materials and methods: A randomised clinical trial was carried out with 29 completely edentulous patients divided into two groups. The first group was rehabilitated with a mandibular overdenture retained by two splinted implants with bar-clip system, while the second group was rehabilitated with a mandibular CD. Both groups also were rehabilitated with maxillary CDs. Masticatory efficiency and patient satisfaction were assessed 3 months after denture insertion. Masticatory efficiency was evaluated through the colorimetric method with the beads as the artificial test-food. Comparisons for masticatory efficiency and patient satisfaction were performed using Student's t-test (alpha = 0.05). Results: No significant statistical difference was found for masticatory efficiency (p = 0.198). Patient overall satisfaction was significantly higher for the mandibular overdenture (p < 0.001). In addition, mandibular overdenture patients were significantly more satisfied with chewing experience (p < 0.05) and retention of the lower denture (p < 0.005). Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that mandibular overdenture significantly improves chewing experience, although limited effect on masticatory efficiency has been observed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available