A Quality-of-Life Comparison Between Self-Aligning and Ball Attachment Systems for 2-Implant–Retained Mandibular Overdentures

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the self-aligning overdenture attachment system by comparing its oral health–related quality of life (OHRQL) with a traditionally used ball attachment system. In this randomized, within-subject crossover trial, 25 edentulous subjects each received 2 mandibular implants, and were then assigned to receive either self-aligning or traditional ball attachments. After 3 months, all subjects were switched to the second attachment type. The OHRQL was evaluated for both of the treatments using the short form of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14). A subanalysis among subjects with below-average space available for attachment placement was also performed. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare differences between groups. Scores on the OHIP-14 physical disability domain were significantly better for the self-aligning attachment system (P  =  .049). Among subjects with below-average attachment space, functional limitation, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, and total OHIP-14, scores were significantly better for the self-aligning attachment system (P  =  .041, P  =  .047, P  =  .048, P  =  .026, and P  =  .005, respectively). The self-aligning attachment system for 2-implant–retained mandibular overdentures is equal or superior to traditional ball attachments in all domains of the OHIP-14.