Quality of life, patient preferences, and implant survival and success of tapered implant-retained mandibular overdentures as a function of the attachment system.

Autor:	Indriksone I; Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry of Riga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia., Vitols P; Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry of Riga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia., Avkstols V; Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry of Riga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia., Grieznis L; Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry of Riga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia., Stamers K; Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry of Riga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia., Linder S; Department of Medical Affairs, Institut Straumann AG-Basel, Basel, Switzerland. susy.linder@straumann.com., Dard M; Department of Medical Affairs, Institut Straumann AG-Basel, Basel, Switzerland.; Section of Oral, Diagnostic and Rehabilitation Sciences, Columbia University, College of Dental Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Journal of periodontal & implant science [J Periodontal Implant Sci] 2023 Jun; Vol. 53 (3), pp. 194-206. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Nov 08.
DOI:	10.5051/jpis.2105840292
Abstrakt:	Purpose: A novel attachment system for implant-retained overdentures (IRODs) with novel material combinations for improved mechanical resilience and prosthodontic success (Novaloc) has been recently introduced as an alternative to an existing system (Locator). This study investigated whether differences between the Novaloc and Locator attachment systems translate into differences in implant survival, implant success, and patient-centered outcomes when applied in a real-world in-practice comparative setting in patients restored with mandibular IRODs supported by 2 interforaminal implants (2-IRODs). Methods: This prospective, intra-subject crossover comparison compared 20 patients who received 2 intra-foraminal bone level tapered implants restored with full acrylic overdentures using either the Locator or Novaloc attachment system. After 6 months of function, the attachment in the corresponding dentures was switched, and the definitive attachment system type was delivered based on the patient's preference after 12 months. For the definitive attachment system, implant survival was evaluated after 24 months. The primary outcomes of this study were oral health-related quality of life and patient preferences related to prosthetic and implant survival. Secondary outcomes included implant survival rate and success, prosthetic survival, perceived general health, and patient satisfaction. Results: Patient-centered outcomes and patient preferences between attachment systems were comparable, with relatively high overall patient satisfaction levels for both attachment systems. No difference in the prosthetic survival rate between study groups was detected. The implant survival rate over the follow-up period after 24 months in both groups was 100%. Conclusions: The results of this in-practice comparison indicate that both attachment systems represent comparable candidates for the prosthodontic retention of 2-IRODs. Both systems showed high rates of patient satisfaction and implant survival. The influence of material combinations of the retentive system on treatment outcomes between the tested systems remains inconclusive and requires further investigations. Competing Interests: The study was supported by Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland. The authors disclose that Straumann AG Basel specifically covered the costs for the implants and prosthetic parts that were used as part of the study. Prof. M. Dard and Dr. Susy Linder are employees of Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland. No author of this manuscript has any conflict of interest concerning this study. (Copyright © 2023. Korean Academy of Periodontology.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu