İmplant destekli overdenture ve klasik tam protezlerin hasta memnuniyeti açısından karşılaştırılması

Volume: 16 Number: 1 January 31, 2013
EN TR

-

Abstract

Objectives: The aims of this study were toevaluate satisfaction of patients used implantretained overdentures and conventional completedentures, and to investigate the effect ofsociodemographic properties on satisfaction.Materials and Methods: Forty two patients, 27female and 15 male,used implant-retainedoverdentures and conventional complete dentureswere included in this study, who attended toUniversity of Yeditepe, Faculty of Dentistry in2011. A questionnaire was prepared and distrubutedto evaluate the patient satisfaction levels about theirdentures and sociodemographic properties such asage, gender, education, marital and income status.The answers were asked to give as not satisfied,satisfied, very satisfied. Chi-square test and Fisher’sExact Chi-square test were used to analyze thequantitative data. An alpha level of 0.05 was usedfor all statistical analyses.Results: The mean age of the 42 patients(64.3% female, 35.7% male) was 62.26. It wasobserved that patients with higher educational levelprefered implant-retained overdentures, comparedto conventional complete dentures.In theconventionalcomplete denture group, highernumbers of patients were very satisfied with thecleanabilitycompared to implant-retainedoverdenture group. (p=0.039). There was nostatistically significant differences betweenimplant-retained overdentures and conventionalcomplete denture groups with regard to satisfactionlevel of esthetic, chewing, speech, retention andcomfort.Conclusions:It can be concluded thatsociodemographic factors did not affect thesatisfaction of different denture types. The patientswith conventional complete dentures were moresatisfied with the cleanability, compared to implantretained overdentures.

Keywords

References

  1. The glossary of prosthodontics, 8 th ed. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94(1):68.
  2. Thomason JM, Lund JP, Chehade A, et al. Patient satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures 6 months after delivery. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:467-473.
  3. Awad MA, Lund JP, Dufresne E, et al. Comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-retained overdentures and conventional dentures among middle-aged edentulous patients: satisfaction and functional assessment. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:117-122.
  4. Assunção WG, Barão VA, Delben JA, Gomes EA, Tabata LF. A comparison of patient satisfaction between treatment with conventional complete dentures and overdentures in the elderly: a literature review. Gerodontology 2010;27:154-162.
  5. Doundoulakis JH, Eckert SE, Lindquist CC, Jeffcoat MK. The implant-supported overdenture as an alternative to the complete mandibular denture. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134:1455-1458.
  6. Boerrigter EM, Stegenga B, Raghoebar GM, et al. Patient satisfaction and chewing ability with implant retained mandibular overdentures: a comparison with new complete dentures with or without preprosthetic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995;53:1167-1173. Awad MA, Locker D, KornerBitensky N, et al. Measuring the effect of intra-oral implant rehabilitation on health-related quality of life in a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Dent Res 2000;79:1659-1663.
  7. Cibirka RM, Razzoog M, Lang BR. Critical evaluation of patient responses to dental implant therapy. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:574-581.
  8. Clancy JMS, Buchs AU, Ardjmand H. A retrospective analysis of one implant system in an oral surgery practice. Phase I: patient satisfaction. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:265-271.

Details

Primary Language

Turkish

Subjects

-

Journal Section

-

Publication Date

January 31, 2013

Submission Date

February 27, 2012

Acceptance Date

-

Published in Issue

Year 1970 Volume: 16 Number: 1

EndNote
Tomruk C, Ozkurt Z, Sencift K, Kazazoglu E (January 1, 2013) İmplant destekli overdenture ve klasik tam protezlerin hasta memnuniyeti açısından karşılaştırılması. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 16 1 8–19.

Cited By

Cumhuriyet Dental Journal (Cumhuriyet Dent J, CDJ) is the official publication of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry. CDJ is an international journal dedicated to the latest advancement of dentistry. The aim of this journal is to provide a platform for scientists and academicians all over the world to promote, share, and discuss various new issues and developments in different areas of dentistry. First issue of the Journal of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry was published in 1998. In 2010, journal's name was changed as Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. Journal’s publication language is English.


CDJ accepts articles in English. Submitting a paper to CDJ is free of charges. In addition, CDJ has not have article processing charges.

Frequency: Four times a year (March, June, September, and December)

IMPORTANT NOTICE

All users of Cumhuriyet Dental Journal should visit to their user's home page through the "https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/user" " or "https://dergipark.org.tr/en/user" links to update their incomplete information shown in blue or yellow warnings and update their e-mail addresses and information to the DergiPark system. Otherwise, the e-mails from the journal will not be seen or fall into the SPAM folder. Please fill in all missing part in the relevant field.

Please visit journal's AUTHOR GUIDELINE to see revised policy and submission rules to be held since 2020.