ABSTRACT
Introduction:
The choice between implant-supported overdentures and conventional complete dentures plays a significant role in patient satisfaction and functional outcomes. Implant-supported overdentures are increasingly used due to their stability, comfort, and improved chewing efficiency. This study aims to evaluate the differences in patient-reported satisfaction and functional outcomes between these two types of prostheses.
Methods:
A cohort of 150 edentulous patients was evaluated using either implant-supported overdentures or conventional complete dentures. Patients completed a satisfaction questionnaire, and masticatory function was assessed through standardized masticatory performance tests. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and comparative analysis.
Results:
Patients with implant-supported overdentures reported significantly higher satisfaction, particularly in comfort, stability, and chewing ability. Masticatory efficiency was also notably better in the implant group. However, conventional dentures showed adequate results in terms of cost and accessibility.
Conclusion:
Implant-supported overdentures offer superior satisfaction and functional outcomes compared to conventional complete dentures, making them a preferred option for long-term edentulous rehabilitation.
KEYWORDS: Conventional complete dentures, implant-supported overdentures, masticatory efficiency, oral health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction
INTRODUCTION
Edentulism, or complete tooth loss, poses significant challenges for affected individuals, particularly regarding oral function and aesthetics. Conventional complete dentures have long been the standard treatment option; however, their drawbacks include reduced stability, comfort, and chewing efficiency, often leading to lower patient satisfaction.[1,2,3] Over the past decades, implant-supported overdentures have emerged as a viable alternative, offering improved stability, retention, and functional outcomes due to their direct anchorage to implants.[4,5]
Several studies have compared patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) between these two types of prostheses.[6,7] Implant-supported overdentures have demonstrated superior patient-reported outcomes in terms of comfort, stability, and masticatory performance.[8,9] This article aims to explore the differences in patient-reported satisfaction and functional outcomes between implant-supported overdentures and conventional complete dentures, providing an evidence-based perspective on their comparative efficacy.
METHODS
This study was conducted on a cohort of 150 edentulous patients between the ages of 50 and 75, who received either implant-supported overdentures (n = 75) or conventional complete dentures (n = 75). Each participant was followed for a period of one year after receiving their prosthesis.
Data collection involved the use of standardized questionnaires to assess patient satisfaction in areas such as comfort, stability, ease of cleaning, and aesthetics. Additionally, masticatory function was evaluated through standardized masticatory performance tests that measured the ability to chew different food textures effectively.
Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive statistics to summarize the data and comparative statistical tests (e.g., Chi-square tests, t-tests) to determine significant differences between the two groups. A P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
The study revealed a significant difference in patient-reported satisfaction between those using implant-supported overdentures and conventional complete dentures. Patients with implant-supported overdentures rated their comfort substantially higher (mean score: 8.9) compared to those with conventional dentures (mean score: 6.5), with a statistically significant P value of <0.05. Stability also showed marked improvement in the implant-supported group, with a score of 9.2 compared to 5.8 in the conventional group (P < 0.01). Aesthetic satisfaction was also higher in the implant group (8.5) versus the conventional group (7.2), with a significant P value of 0.02. While both groups showed relatively similar satisfaction with ease of cleaning, implant-supported overdentures scored slightly better at 7.5 compared to 6.8 in the conventional denture group (P = 0.04). These results highlight that implant-supported overdentures provide enhanced comfort, stability, and aesthetics, contributing to a better overall patient experience [Table 1].
Table 1.
Patient-reported satisfaction
| Parameter | Implant-Supported Overdentures | Conventional Dentures | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comfort | 8.9 | 6.5 | <0.05 |
| Stability | 9.2 | 5.8 | <0.01 |
| Aesthetics | 8.5 | 7.2 | 0.02 |
| Ease of Cleaning | 7.5 | 6.8 | 0.04 |
The analysis of masticatory efficiency also indicated a superior performance among patients with implant-supported overdentures. The ability to chew soft foods (e.g., banana) was significantly better in the implant group, with a mean score of 9.1, compared to 7.5 in the conventional denture group (P < 0.05). When chewing harder foods (e.g., carrot), the difference was even more pronounced, with the implant-supported group scoring 8.4, while the conventional group scored only 5.9 (P < 0.01). This suggests that implant-supported overdentures not only improve patient satisfaction but also enhance functional outcomes, particularly in challenging masticatory tasks [Table 2].
Table 2.
Masticatory efficiency
| Food Texture | Implant-Supported Overdentures | Conventional Dentures | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Soft Food (e.g., banana) | 9.1 | 7.5 | <0.05 |
| Hard Food (e.g., carrots) | 8.4 | 5.9 | <0.01 |
DISCUSSION
The findings of this study reinforce existing evidence that implant-supported overdentures provide superior outcomes in patient satisfaction and functional performance compared to conventional complete dentures. Several factors contribute to these improvements, particularly in comfort and stability.[1,4,8]
Studies have shown that implant-supported overdentures significantly enhance the retention and stability of the prosthesis, reducing discomfort and improving patient confidence while chewing.[2,7] This finding aligns with the current study, where the implant group demonstrated higher comfort and stability scores, as well as superior masticatory performance. These results echo findings from Kanazawa et al. (2018) and Cardoso et al. (2016), who reported improved quality of life among patients using implant-supported overdentures.[2,3]
Moreover, implant-supported overdentures seem to improve patients’ oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) significantly.[5] Fernandez-Estevan et al. (2015) and Egido Moreno et al. (2021) reported similar results, highlighting enhanced satisfaction with the appearance and function of the prosthesis.[4,7] The improved masticatory performance observed in this study may also correlate with better nutritional intake and overall health in edentulous patients.[6]
However, the cost of implant-supported overdentures remains a potential barrier to their widespread adoption. Nogueira et al. (2016) performed a cost-effectiveness analysis that favored implant-supported overdentures, especially for long-term use.[8] Nevertheless, conventional dentures may remain the treatment of choice for patients with financial constraints.
Finally, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of the study, including the relatively short follow-up period of one year and the small cohort size. Future studies could expand on this research by incorporating longer-term follow-up and larger sample sizes to better understand the longitudinal outcomes of both prosthetic treatments.[9,10,11,12]
CONCLUSION
Implant-supported overdentures offer superior patient satisfaction and functional outcomes compared to conventional complete dentures, particularly in terms of comfort, stability, and masticatory efficiency. While implant-supported overdentures may be associated with higher costs, their long-term benefits make them a viable option for edentulous patients seeking improved oral functionality and quality of life. Conventional dentures, however, remain a practical solution for individuals with financial constraints or contraindications to implant placement.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
Nil.
REFERENCES
- 1.Bajunaid SO, Alshahrani AS, Aldosari AA, Almojel AN, Alanazi RS, Alsulaim TM, et al. Patients'satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life of edentulous patients using conventional complete dentures and implant-retained overdentures in Saudi Arabia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19:557. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19010557. doi:10.3390/ijerph 19010557. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Kanazawa M, Tanoue M, Miyayasu A, Takeshita S, Sato D, Asami M, et al. The patient general satisfaction of mandibular single-implant overdentures and conventional complete dentures:Study protocol for a randomized crossover trial. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97:e10721. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000010721. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000010721. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Cardoso RG, Melo LA, Barbosa GA, Calderon PD, Germano AR, Mestriner W, et al. Impact of mandibular conventional denture and overdenture on quality of life and masticatory efficiency. Braz Oral Res. 2016;30:e102. doi: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2016.vol30.0102. doi:10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2016.vol30.0102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Fernandez-Estevan L, Selva-Otaolaurruchi EJ, Montero J, Sola-Ruiz F. Oral health-related quality of life of implant-supported overdentures versus conventional complete prostheses:Retrospective study of a cohort of edentulous patients. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2015;20:e450–8. doi: 10.4317/medoral.20498. doi:10.4317/medoral.20498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Egido Moreno S, Ayuso Montero R, Schemel Suárez M, Roca-Umbert JV, Izquierdo Gómez K, López López J. Evaluation of the quality of life and satisfaction in patients using complete dentures versus mandibular overdentures. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2021;7:231–41. doi: 10.1002/cre2.347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Sun X, Zhai JJ, Liao J, Teng MH, Tian A, Liang X. Masticatory efficiency and oral health-related quality of life with implant-retained mandibular overdentures. Saudi Med J. 2014;35:1195–202. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Sharma AJ, Nagrath R, Lahori M. A comparative evaluation of chewing efficiency, masticatory bite force, and patient satisfaction between conventional denture and implant-supported mandibular overdenture:An in vivo study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2017;17:361–72. doi: 10.4103/jips.jips_76_17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Nogueira TE, Esfandiari S, Leles CR. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the single-implant mandibular overdenture versus conventional complete denture:Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2016;17:533. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1646-0. doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1646-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Mishra SK, Chowdhary R. Patient's oral health-related quality of life and satisfaction with implant supported overdentures:A systematic review. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2019;9:340–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2019.07.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Azar R, Semyari H, Kharazifard MJ. Oral health-related quality of life of patients using conventional dentures versus implant-supported overdentures. Front Dent. 2020;17:1–7. doi: 10.18502/fid.v17i1.3964. doi:10.18502/fid.v17i1.3964. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Sharma AR, Rawat P, Gupta U, Tomar S, Tyagi M, Shukla K. Occlusion considerations in implant supported prosthesis:A review. J Orofac Rehab. 2023;3:22–32. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Tyagi M, Trivedi A, Mowar A. A case report depicting an implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation of an immunocompromised patient with a bilateral subtotal maxillectomy defect secondary to mucormycosis. Int J All Res Educ Sci Methods. 2022;10:1470–6. [Google Scholar]