Author:
Maniewicz Sabrina,Curado Thalita Fernandes Fleury,Srinivasan Murali,Leles Cláudio Rodrigues,Müller Frauke
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
The aim of this multi-center pilot study was to assess the viability and feasibility of a novel treatment concept – the canine-positioned single implant mandibular overdenture (c-SIMO), with the single implant placed on the patient's preferred chewing side instead of the midline.
Materials and methods
Participants received a single implant in the canine region of their preferred chewing side, based on an Asymmetry Index observed during mastication. The pre-existing mandibular denture was transformed into a c-SIMO on a spherical attachment. The primary outcome was oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), measured with GOHAI and OHIP-EDENT. Secondary outcomes included denture satisfaction index (DSI), chewing efficiency (CE), maximum bite force (MBF), implant survival and success, and prosthetic maintenance. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and bivariate comparison tests.
Results
Fifteen participants received the c-SIMO treatment (mean age: 69.9 ± 7.0). Implant success and survival rates were 100% at 1 year. Patient-reported outcome measures improved significantly compared to pre-treatment values (OHIP-EDENT: p = 0.001; DSI: p = 0.001; GOHAI: p = 0.002). Masticatory outcomes also improved significantly (CE: p = 0.001; overall MBF: p = 0.005). Post-implant, MBF was significantly higher in the ipsilateral side compared to the contralateral side at 2 weeks (p = 0.019) and 3 months (p = 0.015), but no longer at T3 (p = 0.730). Common prosthodontic events included denture base adjustments (n = 17) and matrix activation (n = 9).
Conclusions
This pilot study concludes that c-SIMO is a promising treatment option, and a potential alternative to the single midline implant overdenture.
Clinical relevance
The novel treatment concept of a canine-positioned single implant mandibular overdenture could be a viable treatment alternative to the midline positioning.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference72 articles.
1. (2019) ASA physical status classification system. American society of anesthesiologists
2. Ahmed Elawady DM, Kaddah AF, TalaatKhalifa M (2017) Single vs 2 implants on peri-implant marginal bone level and implant failures in mandibular implant overdentures: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Evid Based Dent Pract 17:216–225
3. Allen F, Locker D (2002) A modified short version of the oral health impact profile for assessing health-related quality of life in edentulous adults. Int J Prosthodont 15:446–450
4. Allison P, Locker D, Jokovic A, Slade G (1999) A cross-cultural study of oral health values. J Dent Res 78:643–649
5. Alqutaibi AY, Esposito M, Algabri R, Alfahad A, Kaddah A, Farouk M, Alsourori A (2017) Single vs two implant-retained overdentures for edentulous mandibles: a systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol 10:243–261