Patient satisfaction among subjects with a maxillary single denture, treated with implant-supported telescopic versus ball-and-socket overdentures: A randomized controlled trial.

IF 2.7 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Dental and Medical Problems Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.17219/dmp/169186
Sherihan Hanafy Salem, Ali Abdulghani AlSourori, Marwa Hassan Mostafa
{"title":"Patient satisfaction among subjects with a maxillary single denture, treated with implant-supported telescopic versus ball-and-socket overdentures: A randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Sherihan Hanafy Salem, Ali Abdulghani AlSourori, Marwa Hassan Mostafa","doi":"10.17219/dmp/169186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The present study was performed to rehabilitate maxillary single denture cases with implantretained telescopic or ball-and-socket attachments, and to evaluate the validity of two-implantretained maxillary overdentures as a treatment approach in the maxillary arch.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of the present study was to evaluate patient satisfaction in maxillary single denture wearers with 2 different attachment systems (telescopic attachment vs. ball-and-socket attachment).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A total of 18 completely edentulous maxillary ridge patients (45-60 years old; mean age: 53 years) were selected for this study. Maxillary single dentures were constructed for all the patients. Group 1 patients received 2 implants with a telescopic attachment and group 2 patients received 2 implants with a ball-and-socket attachment. Patient satisfaction with the implant-retained maxillary single denture was evaluated after insertion, and 3 months after the delivery of each implant-retained maxillary single overdenture.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All 18 patients completed the study. After 3 months, the telescopic group showed significant improvement in terms of comfort, chewing, handling, and overall satisfaction, and in the ball-and-socket group, significant improvement was recorded for appearance only. When comparing the 2 groups, after insertion, group 1 showed significantly better results for the 'handling' and 'hygiene' parameters, whereas group 2 showed a significantly better mean score for the 'appearance' parameter. After 3 months, group 1 showed significantly better results for the 'comfort', 'handling', 'hygiene', and 'overall satisfaction' parameters, and group 1 proved significantly better in terms of 'appearance' and 'speech' parameters.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Maxillary single dentures with a telescopic attachment showed an advantage over those with a ball-and-socket attachment regarding patient satisfaction. Concerning the implant number, twoimplantretained maxillary overdentures can be considered a promising approach for patients from developing countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":11191,"journal":{"name":"Dental and Medical Problems","volume":"61 6","pages":"821-828"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dental and Medical Problems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17219/dmp/169186","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The present study was performed to rehabilitate maxillary single denture cases with implantretained telescopic or ball-and-socket attachments, and to evaluate the validity of two-implantretained maxillary overdentures as a treatment approach in the maxillary arch.

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate patient satisfaction in maxillary single denture wearers with 2 different attachment systems (telescopic attachment vs. ball-and-socket attachment).

Material and methods: A total of 18 completely edentulous maxillary ridge patients (45-60 years old; mean age: 53 years) were selected for this study. Maxillary single dentures were constructed for all the patients. Group 1 patients received 2 implants with a telescopic attachment and group 2 patients received 2 implants with a ball-and-socket attachment. Patient satisfaction with the implant-retained maxillary single denture was evaluated after insertion, and 3 months after the delivery of each implant-retained maxillary single overdenture.

Results: All 18 patients completed the study. After 3 months, the telescopic group showed significant improvement in terms of comfort, chewing, handling, and overall satisfaction, and in the ball-and-socket group, significant improvement was recorded for appearance only. When comparing the 2 groups, after insertion, group 1 showed significantly better results for the 'handling' and 'hygiene' parameters, whereas group 2 showed a significantly better mean score for the 'appearance' parameter. After 3 months, group 1 showed significantly better results for the 'comfort', 'handling', 'hygiene', and 'overall satisfaction' parameters, and group 1 proved significantly better in terms of 'appearance' and 'speech' parameters.

Conclusions: Maxillary single dentures with a telescopic attachment showed an advantage over those with a ball-and-socket attachment regarding patient satisfaction. Concerning the implant number, twoimplantretained maxillary overdentures can be considered a promising approach for patients from developing countries.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
上颌单口义齿患者对种植支撑套筒义齿与球窝覆盖义齿的满意度:一项随机对照试验。
背景:本研究对上颌单口义齿采用种植套筒或球窝附着体进行修复,并评价双种植覆盖义齿作为治疗上颌弓的一种方法的有效性。目的:本研究的目的是评估两种不同附着体系统(伸缩附着体和球窝附着体)的上颌单口义齿佩戴者的满意度。材料与方法:18例全无牙上颌嵴患者(45 ~ 60岁;平均年龄:53岁)。所有患者均行上颌单口义齿修复。组1患者接受2个伸缩附着体种植体,组2患者接受2个球窝附着体种植体。分别在种植后和种植后3个月评估患者对上颌单种植覆盖义齿的满意度。结果:18例患者全部完成研究。3个月后,套筒组在舒适度、咀嚼、操作和总体满意度方面均有显著改善,而球窝组仅在外观方面有显著改善。当比较两组时,插入后,第1组在“处理”和“卫生”参数上表现出明显更好的结果,而第2组在“外观”参数上表现出明显更好的平均得分。3个月后,第一组在“舒适”、“操作”、“卫生”和“总体满意度”参数上表现出明显更好的结果,而第一组在“外观”和“语言”参数上表现出明显更好的结果。结论:上颌单口义齿伸缩式附着体比球窝式附着体在患者满意度上有优势。在种植数量方面,对于发展中国家的患者来说,双种植覆盖义齿可以被认为是一种很有前途的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
3.80%
发文量
58
审稿时长
53 weeks
期刊最新文献
Circulating biomarkers of nitrosative stress, protein glycoxidation and inflammation in maxillofacial surgery patients treated with titanium implants. Effect of non-surgical periodontal therapy on the salivary levels of IL-18 and IL-35 in patients with periodontitis. Oral health behaviors and tooth decay at the age of 12 and 15-18 years in Poland. Lifestyle, daily habits, sleep hygiene, and diet: Proposal of a new approach for sleep bruxism management. Stevia vs. triple antibiotic paste: An intracanal battle?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1