Article

Effect of implant-supported or retained dentures on masticatory performance: a systematic review.

Removable Partial Denture Prosthodontics, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (Impact Factor: 1.42). 01/2008; 98(6):470-7. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60147-4
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT While subjective patient-based measures have been increasingly recognized as critical outcomes for prosthodontic treatment, there continues to be a need to validate for patients what changes in masticatory function can be expected with the provision of new implant-supported or retained dentures.
The purpose of this review was to evaluate the critical factors impacting change in masticatory performance following the provision of new implant-supported or retained dentures.
Information retrieval followed a systematic approach using PubMed and the Cochrane Library. English articles published from 1966 to June 2007, in which the masticatory performance of subjects with implant-supported or retained dentures was assessed by objective methods and compared to performance with conventional dentures, were included. Ratings of the evidence provided in each article followed United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality recommendations.
From 281 articles identified, 18 peer-reviewed articles met prespecified criteria for inclusion. Specific outcomes of significance identified by these articles rated as level II are: (1) fixed implant-supported partial dentures do not provide significant improvement in masticatory performance compared to conventional removable partial dentures for Kennedy Class I and II partially edentulous mandibles; (2) the combination of a mandibular implant-supported or retained overdenture (IOD) and maxillary conventional complete denture (CD) provides significant improvement in masticatory performance compared to CDs in both the mandible and maxilla for a limited population having persistent functional problems with an existing mandibular CD due to severely resorbed mandible; and (3) the type of implant and attachment system for mandibular IODs has a limited impact. Specific outcomes of significance identified by articles rated as having a moderate level of evidence (level III) are: (1) mandibular fixed implant-supported complete dentures provide significant improvement in masticatory performance compared to mandibular CDs in subjects dissatisfied with their CDs; and (2) implant-supported mandibular resection dentures have an advantage over conventional dentures in masticatory performance on the defect side of the mouth.
Objective benefits in masticatory performance of implant-supported or retained dentures compared to conventional dentures are limited to a mandibular IOD in edentulous patients with a resorbed mandible and/or difficulty adapting to CDs.

2 Followers
 · 
253 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although implant-retained overdenture allows edentulous patients to take higher occlusal forces than the conventional complete dentures, the biomechanical influences have not been explored yet. Clinically, there is limited knowledge and means for predicting localized bone remodelling after denture treatment with and without implant support. By using finite element (FE) analysis, this article provides an in-silico approach to exploring the treatment effects on the oral mucosa and potential resorption of residual ridge under three different denture configurations in a patient-specific manner. Based on cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) scans, a 3D heterogeneous FE model was created; and the supportive tissue, mucosa, was characterized as a hyperelastic material. A measured occlusal load (63N) was applied onto three virtual models, namely complete denture, two and four implant-retained overdentures. Clinically, the bone resorption was measured after one year in the two implant-retained overdenture treatment. Despite the improved stability and enhanced masticatory function, the implant-retained overdentures demonstrated higher hydrostatic stress in mucosa (43.6kPa and 39.9kPa for two and four implants) at the posterior ends of the mandible due to the cantilever effect, than the complete denture (33.4kPa). Hydrostatic pressure in the mucosa signifies a critical indicator and can be correlated with clinically measured bone resorption, pointing to severer mandibular ridge resorption posteriorly with implant-retained overdentures. This study provides a biomechanical basis for denture treatment planning to improve long-term outcomes with minimal residual ridge resorption. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Biomechanics 12/2014; 48(3). DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.11.043 · 2.50 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Little is known about the level of information on implant dentistry in the public. A representative opinion poll on dental implants in the Austrian population was published in 2003 (Clinical Oral Implants Research 14:621-642). Seven years later, the poll was rerun to assess the up-to-date information level and evaluate recent progress and trends in patients' mindset on dental implants. One thousand adults--representative for the Austrian population--were presented with a total of 19 questionnaire items regarding the level and the sources of information about dental implants as well as the subjective and objective need for patient information. Compared with the survey of 2003, the subjective level of patient information about implant dentistry has significantly increased in the Austrian population. The patients' implant awareness rate was 79%. The objective level of general knowledge about dental implants was still all but satisfactory revealing unrealistic patient expectations. Three-quarters trusted their dentists for information about dental implants, while one-quarter turned to the media. The patients' wish for high-quality implant restorations was significantly higher than in 2003, yet the majority felt that only specialists should perform implant dentistry. This representative survey reveals that dentists are still the main source of patient information, but throws doubt on the quality of their public relations work. Dentists must improve communication strategies to provide their patients with comprehensible, legally tenable information on dental implants and bridge information gaps in the future.
    Clinical Oral Implants Research 11/2010; 22(2):223-9. DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02035.x · 3.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Oral rehabilitation by means of implant-retained mandibular overdentures is known to improve oral function. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term effects of mandibular implant treatment on oral function. We quantified maximum bite force and masticatory performance 10 years after implant treatment. It was hypothesized that these outcome measures would not change in this period. Eighteen edentulous patients were scheduled for re-evaluation of their oral function 10 years after they had participated in a randomized cross-over clinical trial. In that trial, they had received two mandibular implants and a new denture with successively magnet-, ball-socket, and bar-clip attachments. At the 10-year follow-up, 14 of the initial 18 patients participated in the evaluation. As a result of the implant treatment, the average maximum bite force more than doubled, from 162 to 341 N, whereas the average number of chewing cycles to halve the initial particle size decreased from 55 to 27 cycles. No significant changes in maximum bite force and masticatory performance were observed after 10 years. However, the average maximum bite force obtained with implant-retained overdentures is still significantly lower than that of dentate subjects (569 N). Maximum bite force and masticatory performance significantly increased after implant treatment and remained unaltered during the following 10-year period. Thus, implant treatment greatly improves oral function for a long period of time.
    Clinical Oral Implants Research 11/2010; 21(11):1209-13. DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01915.x · 3.12 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
7 Downloads
Available from