TY - JOUR
T1 - A within-subject clinical trial on the conversion of mandibular two-implant to three-implant overdenture
T2 - Patient-centered outcomes and willingness to pay
AU - Emami, Elham
AU - Alesawy, Aminah
AU - de Grandmont, Pierre
AU - Cerutti-Kopplin, Daiane
AU - Kodama, Naoki
AU - Menassa, Mélanie
AU - Rompré, Pierre
AU - Durand, Robert
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was funded through the research allocation received via Dr Emami's CIHR?Clinician Scientist Award and Fonds de recherche en Sant? du Qu?bec (FRSQ) as well as funds from the Saudi Arabian Cultural Bureau in Canada. Phase I of the trial received partial financial support from DENTSPLY Implants.
Funding Information:
This study was funded through the research allocation received via Dr Emami's CIHR—Clinician Scientist Award and Fonds de recherche en Santé du Québec (FRSQ) as well as funds from the Saudi Arabian Cultural Bureau in Canada. Phase I of the trial received partial finan‐ cial support from DENTSPLY Implants.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 The Authors Clinical Oral Implants Research Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
PY - 2019/3
Y1 - 2019/3
N2 - Objectives: To examine the impact of adding a third midline implant with stud attachment to a mandibular two-implant overdenture on patient-oriented outcomes. Methods: In this pre–post design clinical trial, following the standard procedures, mandibular two-implant overdentures of 17 edentulous individuals (61.9 ± 6.6 years) were converted to three-implant overdentures by adding a stud attachment to an unloaded midline implant. Patient-oriented outcomes included patient expectations and satisfaction with implant overdenture as well as willingness to pay the cost of conversion. Data were collected at baseline and at the 6-week follow-up using visual analog and binary scales as well as open-ended questions. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, Spearman's correlation, Fisher exact test, Mann–Whitney U test, and the exact sign test. Results: After connecting the third midline implant to the mandibular two-implant overdenture, there was a statistically significant decrease in the anteroposterior movement (p = 0.005) as evaluated by clinicians. Moreover, study participants reported an increase in perceived stability of the overdenture (95% CI; 0.68–1.00, p = 0.002) and in their ability to speak (95% CI; 0.63–1.00, p = 0.008). The addition of a third implant met the expectations of 94% of patients in regard to lower denture stability, 100% for retention, and 82.4% for comfort. The mandibular three-implant overdenture increased patient general satisfaction over a short period of time, but this improvement was not statistically significant. About 80% of patients would recommend this type of prosthesis to their peers but only 47% of them would agree to pay a large increase in the cost of treatment compared to a two-implant overdenture. Conclusions: The addition of a midline third implant to an existing mandibular two-implant overdenture resulted in several improved patient-reported outcomes.
AB - Objectives: To examine the impact of adding a third midline implant with stud attachment to a mandibular two-implant overdenture on patient-oriented outcomes. Methods: In this pre–post design clinical trial, following the standard procedures, mandibular two-implant overdentures of 17 edentulous individuals (61.9 ± 6.6 years) were converted to three-implant overdentures by adding a stud attachment to an unloaded midline implant. Patient-oriented outcomes included patient expectations and satisfaction with implant overdenture as well as willingness to pay the cost of conversion. Data were collected at baseline and at the 6-week follow-up using visual analog and binary scales as well as open-ended questions. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, Spearman's correlation, Fisher exact test, Mann–Whitney U test, and the exact sign test. Results: After connecting the third midline implant to the mandibular two-implant overdenture, there was a statistically significant decrease in the anteroposterior movement (p = 0.005) as evaluated by clinicians. Moreover, study participants reported an increase in perceived stability of the overdenture (95% CI; 0.68–1.00, p = 0.002) and in their ability to speak (95% CI; 0.63–1.00, p = 0.008). The addition of a third implant met the expectations of 94% of patients in regard to lower denture stability, 100% for retention, and 82.4% for comfort. The mandibular three-implant overdenture increased patient general satisfaction over a short period of time, but this improvement was not statistically significant. About 80% of patients would recommend this type of prosthesis to their peers but only 47% of them would agree to pay a large increase in the cost of treatment compared to a two-implant overdenture. Conclusions: The addition of a midline third implant to an existing mandibular two-implant overdenture resulted in several improved patient-reported outcomes.
KW - clinical trial
KW - dental implants
KW - mandibular prosthesis
KW - overdentures
KW - patient satisfaction
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061903668&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061903668&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/clr.13408
DO - 10.1111/clr.13408
M3 - Article
C2 - 30681193
AN - SCOPUS:85061903668
SN - 0905-7161
VL - 30
SP - 218
EP - 228
JO - Clinical Oral Implants Research
JF - Clinical Oral Implants Research
IS - 3
ER -