Cleansability of and patients' satisfaction with implant-retained overdentures

A retrospective comparison of two attachment methods

Alberto J. Ambard, Ju Chun Fanchiang, Leonard Mueninghoff, Ananda Dasanayake

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background. Two important factors in the use of implant-retained overdentures are cleansability and patients' satisfaction. Limited research has been published concerning the cleansability of these overdentures. On the other hand, studies have compared patients' satisfaction with conventional dentures and various designs of implant overdentures. However, no studies have compared overdentures retained by Hader bars (Sterngold, Attleboro, Mass.) and direct ERA attachments (Sterngold) in terms of both cleansability and patients' satisfaction. Purpose. The authors' aim was to determine the cleansability of and patients' acceptance of overdentures retained by direct ERA attachments and overdentures supported by a Hader bar with distal ERA attachments and a Hader clip. Materials and Methods. Two groups of 10 subjects each were evaluated: Group A, consisting of patients with overdentures retained by direct ERA attachments, and Group B, consisting of patients with overdentures retained by Hader bars. The authors evaluated the subjects between 18 and 24 months after the delivery of the overdentures by means of a questionnaire and a clinical examination to score each patient on gingival, plaque and calculus indexes. Results. Group A exhibited better results than Group B on calculus, plaque and gingival indexes, but the difference was not statistically significant. The authors found no significant difference between the two experimental groups in satisfaction. Conclusions. When evaluated in terms of subjects' satisfaction and calculus, plaque and gingival index scores, implant-retained overdentures supported by direct ERA attachments were similar to those supported by a Hader bar. Clinical Implications. The two types of overdentures studied are equally satisfactory and easy to clean. Other factors such as biomechanics, patients' preference and previous experience may be more critical when selecting the retention design for an overdenture supported by four implants.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1237-1242
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the American Dental Association
Volume133
Issue number9
StatePublished - Sep 2002

Fingerprint

Overlay Denture
Patient Satisfaction
Calculi
Periodontal Index
Denture Design
Patient Preference
Biomechanical Phenomena
Surgical Instruments

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Cleansability of and patients' satisfaction with implant-retained overdentures : A retrospective comparison of two attachment methods. / Ambard, Alberto J.; Fanchiang, Ju Chun; Mueninghoff, Leonard; Dasanayake, Ananda.

In: Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 133, No. 9, 09.2002, p. 1237-1242.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{97aa3f26eff64a8cb57f2f3e26160e12,
title = "Cleansability of and patients' satisfaction with implant-retained overdentures: A retrospective comparison of two attachment methods",
abstract = "Background. Two important factors in the use of implant-retained overdentures are cleansability and patients' satisfaction. Limited research has been published concerning the cleansability of these overdentures. On the other hand, studies have compared patients' satisfaction with conventional dentures and various designs of implant overdentures. However, no studies have compared overdentures retained by Hader bars (Sterngold, Attleboro, Mass.) and direct ERA attachments (Sterngold) in terms of both cleansability and patients' satisfaction. Purpose. The authors' aim was to determine the cleansability of and patients' acceptance of overdentures retained by direct ERA attachments and overdentures supported by a Hader bar with distal ERA attachments and a Hader clip. Materials and Methods. Two groups of 10 subjects each were evaluated: Group A, consisting of patients with overdentures retained by direct ERA attachments, and Group B, consisting of patients with overdentures retained by Hader bars. The authors evaluated the subjects between 18 and 24 months after the delivery of the overdentures by means of a questionnaire and a clinical examination to score each patient on gingival, plaque and calculus indexes. Results. Group A exhibited better results than Group B on calculus, plaque and gingival indexes, but the difference was not statistically significant. The authors found no significant difference between the two experimental groups in satisfaction. Conclusions. When evaluated in terms of subjects' satisfaction and calculus, plaque and gingival index scores, implant-retained overdentures supported by direct ERA attachments were similar to those supported by a Hader bar. Clinical Implications. The two types of overdentures studied are equally satisfactory and easy to clean. Other factors such as biomechanics, patients' preference and previous experience may be more critical when selecting the retention design for an overdenture supported by four implants.",
author = "Ambard, {Alberto J.} and Fanchiang, {Ju Chun} and Leonard Mueninghoff and Ananda Dasanayake",
year = "2002",
month = "9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "133",
pages = "1237--1242",
journal = "Journal of the American Dental Association",
issn = "0002-8177",
publisher = "American Dental Association",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cleansability of and patients' satisfaction with implant-retained overdentures

T2 - A retrospective comparison of two attachment methods

AU - Ambard, Alberto J.

AU - Fanchiang, Ju Chun

AU - Mueninghoff, Leonard

AU - Dasanayake, Ananda

PY - 2002/9

Y1 - 2002/9

N2 - Background. Two important factors in the use of implant-retained overdentures are cleansability and patients' satisfaction. Limited research has been published concerning the cleansability of these overdentures. On the other hand, studies have compared patients' satisfaction with conventional dentures and various designs of implant overdentures. However, no studies have compared overdentures retained by Hader bars (Sterngold, Attleboro, Mass.) and direct ERA attachments (Sterngold) in terms of both cleansability and patients' satisfaction. Purpose. The authors' aim was to determine the cleansability of and patients' acceptance of overdentures retained by direct ERA attachments and overdentures supported by a Hader bar with distal ERA attachments and a Hader clip. Materials and Methods. Two groups of 10 subjects each were evaluated: Group A, consisting of patients with overdentures retained by direct ERA attachments, and Group B, consisting of patients with overdentures retained by Hader bars. The authors evaluated the subjects between 18 and 24 months after the delivery of the overdentures by means of a questionnaire and a clinical examination to score each patient on gingival, plaque and calculus indexes. Results. Group A exhibited better results than Group B on calculus, plaque and gingival indexes, but the difference was not statistically significant. The authors found no significant difference between the two experimental groups in satisfaction. Conclusions. When evaluated in terms of subjects' satisfaction and calculus, plaque and gingival index scores, implant-retained overdentures supported by direct ERA attachments were similar to those supported by a Hader bar. Clinical Implications. The two types of overdentures studied are equally satisfactory and easy to clean. Other factors such as biomechanics, patients' preference and previous experience may be more critical when selecting the retention design for an overdenture supported by four implants.

AB - Background. Two important factors in the use of implant-retained overdentures are cleansability and patients' satisfaction. Limited research has been published concerning the cleansability of these overdentures. On the other hand, studies have compared patients' satisfaction with conventional dentures and various designs of implant overdentures. However, no studies have compared overdentures retained by Hader bars (Sterngold, Attleboro, Mass.) and direct ERA attachments (Sterngold) in terms of both cleansability and patients' satisfaction. Purpose. The authors' aim was to determine the cleansability of and patients' acceptance of overdentures retained by direct ERA attachments and overdentures supported by a Hader bar with distal ERA attachments and a Hader clip. Materials and Methods. Two groups of 10 subjects each were evaluated: Group A, consisting of patients with overdentures retained by direct ERA attachments, and Group B, consisting of patients with overdentures retained by Hader bars. The authors evaluated the subjects between 18 and 24 months after the delivery of the overdentures by means of a questionnaire and a clinical examination to score each patient on gingival, plaque and calculus indexes. Results. Group A exhibited better results than Group B on calculus, plaque and gingival indexes, but the difference was not statistically significant. The authors found no significant difference between the two experimental groups in satisfaction. Conclusions. When evaluated in terms of subjects' satisfaction and calculus, plaque and gingival index scores, implant-retained overdentures supported by direct ERA attachments were similar to those supported by a Hader bar. Clinical Implications. The two types of overdentures studied are equally satisfactory and easy to clean. Other factors such as biomechanics, patients' preference and previous experience may be more critical when selecting the retention design for an overdenture supported by four implants.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036725066&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036725066&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 133

SP - 1237

EP - 1242

JO - Journal of the American Dental Association

JF - Journal of the American Dental Association

SN - 0002-8177

IS - 9

ER -