Comparison of Implant-supported Overdentures and Conventional Complete Dentures Regarding Patient Satisfaction

Year 2025, Volume: 9 Issue: 2, 92 - 97, 29.08.2025

Erkut Kahramanoğlu , Kadir Erden , Zeliha Şanıvar Abbasgholızadeh

https://doi.org/10.29228/erd.99

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the patient satisfaction between these two treatment modalities among individuals experienced with implant-supported overdenture prostheses or traditional complete dentures, and to analyze the factors influencing patient satisfaction.
Materials and Methods: This study was conducted by telephone interviews with 100 patients who received complete denture or implant-supported overdenture treatment at Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry. The survey includes questions designed to assess patients' demographic information, including age, gender, educational attainment, and their satisfaction with various aspects of their prosthesis, such as functionality, phonation, aesthetics, cleanability, ease of application, and accessibility to treatment. The visual analog scale (VAS) was employed to score the survey questions. The results of the study were assessed at a 95% confidence interval with a level of significance of p<0.05.
Result: The satisfaction ratings for implant-supported overdenture prosthesis were significantly higher regarding chewing comfort, psychological safety, and enhanced pleasure for eating. Traditional complete dentures have significantly higher satisfaction ratings for treatment accessibility, treatment simplicity, and reduced food retention. Neither type of prosthesis has statistical superiority over the other on aesthetics, phonation, retention, cleanability, taste and smell, ease of insertion and removal, and overall satisfaction.
Conclusion: Although both types of prosthesis have advantages over each other in different evaluations, there is no significant difference between the two types of prosthesis in terms of overall patient satisfaction.

Keywords

complete denture , implant-supported overdenture , patient satisfaction

Konvansiyonel Tam Protez ve İmplant Destekli Overdenture Protezlerde Hasta Memnuniyetinin Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Amaç: İmplant destekli overdenture protez veya konvansiyonel tam protez kullanım tecrübesi olan hastalar arasında, bu iki tedavi yönteminin hasta memnuniyeti açısından karşılaştırılması ve hasta memnuniyetine etki eden faktörlerin değerlendirilmesidir.
Gereç ve yöntem: Bu çalışma; Marmara Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesinde tam protez veya implant destekli overdenture protez tedavisi görmüş olan 100 hastaya telefon görüşmesiyle yöneltilen anket soruları ile yürütülmüştür. Anket, hastaların yaş, cinsiyet, eğitim düzeyi gibi dermografik verileri ve protezlerinin fonksiyon, fonasyon, estetik, temizlenebilirlik, uygulama kolaylığı, tedaviye ulaşabilme kolaylığı gibi farklı parametreleriyle ilgili memnuniyetlerini değerlendirmeye yönelik sorulardan oluşmaktadır. Anket sorularının skorlanmasında, görsel analog skala (VAS) kullanılmıştır. Çalışmada elde edilen bulgular %95 güven aralığında, p<0,05 anlamlılık düzeyinde değerlendirilmiştir.
Bulgular: Çiğneme rahatlığı, kendini güvende hissetme, yemek yemeye olan ilginin artması konularında implant destekli overdenture protezlerin memnuniyet skorları anlamlı olarak daha yüksektir. Tedaviye ulaşabilme kolaylığı, tedavi kolaylığı ve gıda retansiyonunun azlığı konularında konvansiyonel tam protezler anlamlı olarak daha yüksek memnuniyet skorları sergilemiştir. Estetik, fonasyon, retansiyon, temizlenebilirlik, tat ve koku alma, protezlerin takıp-çıkarılabilme kolaylığı ve genel memnuniyet açısından iki protez tipi arasından birinin diğerine karşı istatistiksel bir üstünlüğü bulunmamaktadır.
Sonuç: Her iki protez tipinin de birbirlerine karşı farklı değerlendirmelerde üstünlükleri olsa da hastaların genel memnuniyeti açısından iki protez tipi arasında anlamlı bir fark yoktur.

Keywords

tam protez , implant destekli overdenture protez , hasta memnuniyeti

References

• Aldhohrah T, Mashrah MA, Wang Y. Effect of 2-implant mandibular overdenture with different attachments and loading protocols on peri-implant health and prosthetic complications: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2022;127(6):832-844.
• Allen F, McMillian A, Walshaw D. A patient-based assessment of implant-stabilized and conventional complete dentures. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2001;85(2):141–147.
• Al-Rafee MA. The epidemiology of edentulism and the associated factors: A review. J. Family. Med. Prim. Care. 2020; 9:1841-3.
• Assunção WG, Barão VAR, Delben JA, Gomes ÉA, Tabata LF. A comparison of patient satisfaction between treatment with conventional complete dentures and overdentures in the elderly: a literature review. Gerodontology. 2010;27(2):154–162.
• Awad MA, Lund JP, Shapiro SH, Locker D, Klemetti E, Chehade A, Savard A, Feine JS. Oral health status and treatment satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures: a randomized clinical trial in a senior population. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2003;16(4):390-6. PMID: 12956494.
• Brennan M, Houston F, O'Sullivan M, O'Connell B. Patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life outcomes of implant overdentures and fixed complete dentures. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants. 2010;25(4):791-800. PMID: 20657876.
• Doğan BG, Gökalp S. Tooth loss and edentulism in the Turkish elderly. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2012;54: e162-e166.
• Doundoulakis JH, Eckert SE, Lindquist CC, Jeffcoat MK. The implant-supported overdenture as an alternative to the complete mandibular denture. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2003;134(11):1455–1458.
• Erdil D, Yızdız H, Bağış N. Evaluation of patient satisfaction about implant therapy. Turkiye. Klin. J. Dent. Sci. 2019;25(1):43–49.
• Feıne Js, Carlsson Ge, Awad Ma, Chehade A, Duncan Wj, Gızanı S, Head T, Heydecke G, Lund Jp, Macentee M, Merıcske-Stern R, Mojon P, Moraıs Ja, Naert I, Payne Ag, Penrod J, Stoker Gt, Tawse-Smıth A, Taylor Td, Thomason Jm, Thomason Wm, Wısmeıjer D. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. 2002; Gerodontology, 19: 3–4.
• Gates W, Cooper LF, Sanders AE, Reside GJ, Kok IJ. The effect of implant-supported removable partial dentures on oral health quality of life. Clin. Oral Imp. Res. 2012;1–7.
• Geckili O, Bilhan H, Mumcu E, Dayan C, Yabul A, Tuncer N. Comparison of patient satisfaction, quality of life, and bite force between elderly edentulous patients wearing mandibular two implant-supported overdentures and convantional complete dentures after 4 years. Spec. Care. Dent. 2012; 32:136–141.
• Geçkili O, Bural C, Bilmenoğlu Ç. İmplant destekli tam protezlerde kullanılan tutucu sistemler. EÜ. Dişhek. Fak. Derg. 2010; 31:9–18.
• Gray D, Patel J. Implant-supported overdentures: part 1. Br. Dent. J. 2021; 231(2):94-100.
• Melas F, Marcenes W, Wrıght PS. Oral Health impact on daily performance in patients with implant-stabilized overdentures and patients with conventional complete dentures. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants, 2001; 16: 700–712.
• Müller F, Schimmel M: Tooth loss and dental prostheses in the oldest old. Eur. Geriatr. Med. 2010;1: 239-243.
• Nogueira TE, Aguiar FMO, Esfandiari S, et al. Effectiveness of immediately loaded single-implant mandibular overdentures versus mandibular complete dentures: A 1-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. J. Dent. 2018; 77:43-50.
• Passia N, Wolfart S, Kern M. Ten-year clinical outcome of single implant-retained mandibular overdentures-A prospective pilot study. J. Dent. 2019; 82:63-5.
• Tomruk C, Özkurt Z, Şençift K, Kazazoğlu E. İmplant destekli overdenture ve klasik tam protezlerin hasta memnuniyeti açısından karşılaştırılması. Cumhuriyet Dent. J. 2013; 16(1):8-19.
• Zhang L, Lyu C, Shang Z, Niu A, Liang X. Quality of life of implant-supported overdenture and conventional complete denture in restoring the edentulous mandible: A systematic review. Implant. Dent. 2017;26(6):945-50.
• Zitzmann NU, Hagmann E, Weiger R. What is the prevalence of various types of prosthetic dental restorations in europe? Clin. Oral. Implants. Res. 2007;18(3):20–33.