Complications and Patient Satisfaction With 4 İmplant-Supported Bar-Clips Retained Mandibular Overdentures

Yıl 2010, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 2, 581 - 589, 01.07.2010

Seçil Karakoca Nemli Duygu Boynueğri

Öz

The purpose of this preliminary report was to review the prosthetic complications and patient satisfaction with 4 implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained by bar-clips attachments opposing to conventional dentures. Eighteen patients treated with 4 implant-supported mandibular overdentures and maxillary dentures. The patients were followed-up for 2 years. During the followup period, prosthodontic complications/repairs were recorded. Patients indicated on a visual analogue scale satisfaction with the prosthesis comfort, apperance, function, speech, cleaning easiness and overall satisfaction at 1 week after prothesis insertion baseline , first and second years. The change in patient satisfaction with the time was analyzed using Wilcoxon test p < 0.05 . The most frequent complication was retention degradation. Subsequent complications were retaining screw loosening and relining of the maxillary denture. The patient satisfaction with prostheses was generally increased at the end of first year compared to baseline. The increases were statistically significant for comfort, speech, and cleaning easiness. Satisfaction with the function was decreased to second years. An increase in patient satisfaction was observed, while decreased satisfaction, exceptionally speech, was recorded comparing with first year. From baseline to 2 years, satisfaction were increased except for function. For 4 implant-supported bar-clips retained mandibular overdentures, retention degradation and screw loosening should be considered as potential complications. The patients generally revealed high satisfaction fort he prostheses and their satisfaction were increased with the time for comfort, speech, and cleaning easiness

Anahtar Kelimeler

edentulous mandibulae, implant, barclips retention, complication, patient satisfaction

Dişsiz Alt Çeneye Uygulanan 4 İmplant Destekli Bar Tutuculu Hareketli Protezlerde Komplikasyonların ve Hasta Memnuniyetinin Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı dişsiz alt çenede 4 implant ile desteklenen bar tutuculu hareketli ve üst çenede tam protez uygulanan hastalarda protetik komplikasyonların ve hasta memnuniyetinin değerlendirilmesidir. Onsekiz dişsiz hasta alt çenede 4 implant destekli bar tutuculu ve üst çenede tam protez ile tedavi edildi. Hastalar 2 yıl boyunca düzenli kontrollere çağrıldı. Takip süresi boyunca görülen protetik komplikasyonlar ve tamirler kaydedildi. Hastaların protezlerinin rahatlığı, estetiği, fonksiyonu, konuşma rahatlığı, temizleme kolaylığı ve genel memnuniyetleri vizuel analog skala üzerinde işaretleme yapmaları sağlanarak ölçüldü. Ölçümler protez tesliminin 1 hafta başlangıç , 1 ve 2 yıl sonrasındaki kontrollerde uygulandı. Hasta memnuniyetinde başlangıçtan 1 ve 2 yıl sonra zamanla bir değişiklik olup olmadığı Wilcoxon testi p < 0,05 ile incelendi. En sık görülen komplikasyon kliplerin tutuculuğunda azalma, daha sonra bar vidalarında gevşeme ve üst protezin besleme gerekliliğidir. Birinci yılda hasta memnuniyeti başlangıca göre genel olarak artmıştır. Bu artış rahatlık, konuşma ve temizleme kolaylığı açılarından istatistik olarak anlamlıdır. İkinci yılda fonksiyon açısından memnuniyet birinci yıla göre anlamlı olarak azalmıştır. İkinci yıl, başlangıç ile kıyaslandığında memnuniyet fonksiyon açısından azalırken diğer sorular için artış gözlenmiştir. Alt çenede 4 implant destekli bar tutuculu protezlerde tutuculuk azalması, vida gevşemesi potansiyel sorunlar alarak göz önünde bulundurulmalıdır. Hastaların bu protezler için genel olarak memnuniyetlerinin yüksek olduğu görülürken rahatlık, konuşma ve temizlik yönlerinden zamanla memnuniyetleri artmıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

Dişsiz alt çene, implant, barklips tutucu, hareketli protez, komplikasyon, hasta memnuniyeti

Kaynakça

• Allen PF, McMillan AS, Walshaw D.A patient-based assessment of implant-stabilized and conventional com- plete dentures. J. Prosthet. Dent. 85: 141-147, 2001.
• Krennmair G, Krainhöfner M, Piehslinger E. The influ- ence of bar design (round versus milled bar) on prosth- odontic maintenance of mandibular overdentures sup- ported by 4 implants: a 5-year prospective study. Int. J. Prosthodont. 21: 514-520, 2008.
• Mericske-Stern RD, Taylor TD, Belser U. Management of the edentulous patient. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 11(Suppl 1): 108-125, 2000.
• Zitzmann NU, Marinello CP.A review of clinical and technical considerations for fixed and removable implant prostheses in the edentulous mandible. Int. J. Prostho- dont. 15: 65-72, 2002.
• Alsabeeha N, Payne AG, De Silva RK, Swain MV.Mandibular single-implant overdentures: a review with surgical and prosthodontic perspectives of a novel approach. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 20: 356-365, 2009.
• Alsabeeha NH, De Silva RK, Thomson WM, Payne AG.. Primary stability measurements of single implants in the midline of the edentulous mandible for overdentures. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 21: 563-566, 2010.
• Misch CE. Contemporary implant dentistry. St Louis: Mosby-Year Book, Inc, 1993, 669-684
• Sadowsky SJ. The implant-supported prosthesis for the edentulous arch: deign considerations. J. Prosthet. Dent. 78: 28-33, 1997.
• Simon H, Yanase RT. Terminology for implant prostheses. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 18: 539-543, 2003.
• Chaffee NR, Felton DA, Cooper LF, Palmqvist U, Smith R. Prosthetic complications in an implant-retained man- dibular overdenture population: initial analysis of a pro- spective study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 87: 40-44, 2002.
• Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Brånemark PI, Jemt T. Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int. J. Oral Max- illofac. Implants. 5: 347-359, 1990.
• Ekelund JA, Lindquist LW, Carlsson GE, Jemt T. Implant treatment in the edentulous mandible: a prospective study on Brånemark system implants over more than 20 years. Int. J. Prosthodont. 16: 602-608, 2003.
• Ferrigno N, Laureti M, Fanali S, Grippaudo G. A long- term follow-up study of non-submerged ITI implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Part I: Ten-year life table analysis of a prospective multicenter study with 1286 implants. Clin. Oral. Implants Res. 13:260-273, 2002.
• Eliasson A, Palmqvist S, Svenson B, Sondell K. Five-year results with fixed complete-arch mandibular prostheses supported by 4 implants. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Im- plants. 15: 505-510, 2000.
• MacEntee MI, Walton JN, Glick N. A clinical trial of pa- tient satisfaction and prosthodontic needs with ball and bar attachments for implant-retained complete overden- tures: three-year results. J. Prosthet. Dent. 93: 28-37, 2005.
• Nedir R, Bischof M, Szmukler-Moncler S, Belser UC, Samson J. Prosthetic complications with dental implants: from an up-to-8-year experience in private practice. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 21: 919-928, 2006.
• Walton JN, MacEntee MI. A prospective study on the maintenance of implant prostheses in private practice. Int. J. Prosthodont. 10: 453-458, 1997.
• Payne AG, Solomons YF.Mandibular implant-supported overdentures: a prospective evaluation of the burden of prosthodontic maintenance with 3 different attachment systems. Int. J. Prosthodont. 13: 246-253, 2000.
• Thomason JM, Lund JP, Chehade A, Feine JS. Patient satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures 6 months after delivery. Int. J. Prosthodont. 16: 467-473, 2003.
• Zitzmann NU, Marinello CP.Treatment outcomes of fixed or removable implant-supported prostheses in the eden- tulous maxilla. Part I: patients’ assessments. J. Prosthet. Dent. 83: 424-433, 2000.
• Emami E, Heydecke G, Rompré PH, de Grandmont P, Feine JS. Impact of implant support for mandibular den- tures on satisfaction, oral and general health-related quality of life: a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 20: 533-544, 2009.
• Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong, W. Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of prefer- ences for health states? Med. Decis. Making. 21: 329– 34, 2001.
• Siadat H, Alikhasi M, Mirfazaelian A, Geramipanah F, Zaery F. Patient satisfaction with implant-retained man- dibular overdentures: a retrospective study. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 10: 93-98, 2008.
• Schmitt A, Zarb GA The notion of implant-supported overdentures. J. Prosthet. Dent. 79: 60-65, 1998.
• Hemmings KW, Schmitt A, Zarb GA. Complications and maintenance requirements for fixed prostheses and over- dentures in the edentulous mandible: a 5-year report. Int. J .Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 9: 191-196, 1994.