Within-subject comparison of two rigid bar designs connecting two interforaminal implants: patients' satisfaction and prosthetic results.

BACKGROUND There is evidence for the superiority of two-implant overdentures over complete dentures in the mandible. Various anchorage devices were used to provide stability to overdentures. The aim of the present study was to compare two designs of a rigid bar connecting two mandibular implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS Completely edentulous patients received a new denture in the maxilla and an implant-supported overdenture in the mandible. They were randomly allocated to two groups (A or B) with regard to the bar design. A standard U-shaped bar (Dolder bar) was used connecting the two implants in a straight line. For comparison, precision attachments were soldered distal to the bar copings. Group A started the study with the standard bar (S-bar), while group B started with the attachment-bar (A-bar). After 3 months, they had to answer a questionnaire (visual analogue scale [VAS]); then the bar design was changed in both groups. After a period of another 3 months, the patients had to answer the same questions; then they had the choice to keep their preferred bar. Now the study period was extended to another year of observation, and the patients answered again the same questionnaire. In vivo force measurements were carried out with both bar types at the end of the test periods. The prosthetic maintenance service carried out during the 6-month period was recorded for both bar types in both groups. Statistical analysis as performed with the SPSS statistical package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). RESULTS Satisfaction was high in both groups. Group B, who had entered the study with the attachment bar, gave slightly better ratings to this type for four items, while in group A, no differences were found. At the end of the 6-month comparison period, all but one patient wished to continue to wear the attachment bar. Prosthetic service was equal in groups A and B, but the total number of interventions is significantly higher in the attachment bar. Force patterns of maximum biting were similar in both bar designs, but exhibited significantly higher axial forces in the attachment bar. CONCLUSIONS Both bar designs provide good retention and functional comfort. High stability appears to be an important factor for the patients' satisfaction and oral comfort. Rigid retention results in a higher force impact and appears to evoke the need for the retightening of occlusal screws, resulting in more maintenance service.

[1]  G. Heydecke,et al.  Influence of implant and conventional prostheses on satisfaction and quality of life: A literature review. Part 2: Qualitative analysis and evaluation of the studies. , 2006, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[2]  M. Quirynen,et al.  A 10-year randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining mandibular overdentures: peri-implant outcome. , 2005, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[3]  A. van der Bilt,et al.  Masticatory Function with Implant-supported Overdentures , 2004, Journal of dental research.

[4]  J. P. Lund,et al.  Oral health status and treatment satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures: a randomized clinical trial in a senior population. , 2003, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[5]  G. Heydecke,et al.  Oral and general health-related quality of life with conventional and implant dentures. , 2003, Community dentistry and oral epidemiology.

[6]  R. Mericske-Stern,et al.  Retention mechanisms and prosthetic complications of implant-supported mandibular overdentures: long-term results. , 2002, Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research.

[7]  A. McMillan,et al.  Food selection and perceptions of chewing ability following provision of implant and conventional prostheses in complete denture wearers. , 2002, Clinical oral implants research.

[8]  J. Walton,et al.  One-year prosthetic outcomes with implant overdentures: a randomized clinical trial. , 2002, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[9]  L. Cooper,et al.  Prosthetic complications in an implant-retained mandibular overdenture population: initial analysis of a prospective study. , 2002, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[10]  S. Sadowsky Mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a literature review. , 2001, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[11]  A. van der Bilt,et al.  Biting and Chewing in Overdentures, Full Dentures, and Natural Dentitions , 2000, Journal of dental research.

[12]  K. Gotfredsen,et al.  Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or bar attachments: a randomized prospective 5-year study. , 2000, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[13]  H. Van Oosterwyck,et al.  In vivo forces on oral implants supporting a mandibular overdenture: the influence of attachment system , 1999, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[14]  J. Lund,et al.  A Within-subject Comparison of Mandibular Long-bar and Hybrid Implant-supported Prostheses: Evaluation of Masticatory Function , 1999, Journal of dental research.

[15]  A. Slagter,et al.  Bite Forces with Mandibular Implant-retained Overdentures , 1998, Journal of dental research.

[16]  R. Mericske-Stern Three-dimensional force measurements with mandibular overdentures connected to implants by ball-shaped retentive anchors. A clinical study. , 1998, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[17]  R. Mericske-Stern Force distribution on implants supporting overdentures: the effect of distal bar extensions. A 3-D in vivo study. , 1997, Clinical oral implants research.

[18]  M. Piotti,et al.  3-D in vivo force measurements on mandibular implants supporting overdentures. A comparative study. , 1996, Clinical oral implants research.

[19]  J. Lund,et al.  Within-subject Comparisons of Implant-supported Mandibular Prostheses: Evaluation of Masticatory Function , 1994, Journal of dental research.

[20]  J. Lund,et al.  Within-subject Comparisons of Implant-supported Mandibular Prostheses: Psychometric Evaluation , 1994, Journal of dental research.