رابطه‌ی نوع اتچمنت بر کیفیت زندگی و میزان رضایت بیماران دارای اوردنچر متکی بر ایمپلنت

نوع مقاله : مقاله‌های پژوهشی

چکیده

مقدمه: بیماران بی‌دندان، اغلب با مشکلات دنچر مندیبل مواجه هستند. اوردنچرهای متکی بر ایمپلنت مندیبل، منجر به ثبات بیشتر پروتز و بهبود فانکشن و رضایت بیمار می‌شوند. هدف از این مطالعه، ارزیابی اثر اوردنچرهای متکی بر ایمپلنت و نوع اتچمنت بر رضایت‌مندی و کیفیت زندگی بیماران بود.
مواد و روش‌ها: در این مطالعه‌ی گذشته‌نگر، 59 بیمار فراخوانده شدند که حداقل ۳ سال اوردنچرشان تحت نیرو قرار گرفته بود. پس از معاینات کلینیکی، دو فرم OHIP21 و VAS جهت بررسی کیفیت زندگی بیماران و رضایت‌مندی آن‌ها از اوردنچرهای‌شان توسط بیماران تکمیل گردید. داده‌ها وارد نرم‌افزار SPSS نسخه‌ی ۲۴ شد. از آزمون Kolmogorov- Smirnov جهت یافتن پراکندگی داده‌ها و آزمون‌های Kruskal-Wallis، Mann-Whitney و Post hoc LSD جهت سنجش نتایج پرسش‌نامه‌ها استفاده شد. سطح معنی‌داری 05/0 > p value به دست آمد.
یافته‌ها: جنسیت، تأثیر معنی‌داری در رضایت و کیفیت زندگی مردم ندارد. گیر در اتچمنت بال و بار و رضایت کلی در اتچمنت بار و کلیپ به طور معنی‌داری بالاتر از لوکیتور بود. اتچمنت لوکیتور نسبت به سایر اتچمنت‌ها بیشترین مشکلات و مشکلات پروتزی را نشان دادند.
 نتیجه‌گیری: بر اساس یافته‌های مطالعه‌ی حاضر می‌توان نتیجه گرفت که جنسیت بر رضایت‌مندی بیماران تأثیر معنی‌داری ندارد و افزایش تعداد ایمپلنت‌هاست که کیفیت زندگی بیماران استفاده‌کننده از اوردنچر متکی بر ایمپلنت را بهبود می‌بخشد. از منظر عملکرد کلینیکی نیز، نوع اتچمنت، تأثیری بر مشکلات پروتزی و ایمپلنتی نشان نداد.
کلید واژه‌‌ها: اوردنچر، متکی بر ایمپلنت، کیفیت زندگی، رضایت‌مندی بیماران

عنوان مقاله [English]

Effect of Attachment Types on Quality of Life and Satisfaction of Patients with Implant Overdentures.

چکیده [English]

Introduction: Patients without teeth are most likely to face denture mandibular. Overdentures based on the mandibular implant lead to greater stabilization of the prosthesis, resulting in improved function and patient satisfaction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of implant overdentures and the type of attachment on patients' satisfaction and quality of life.
Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study fifty-nine patients who their overdentures had been under force for at least three years, were recalled. After conducting clinical examinations and completing the relevant form, they completed two forms, OHIP21 and VAS, to assess the quality of life of patients and their satisfaction with implant-supported overdentures. The data was entered into SPSS software. Kolmogorov-Smirnov Sample test was used to find data distribution. Also tests Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney and post hoc LSD were used to measure the results of the questionnaires (α ≤ 0.05).
Results: Gender does not have a significant effect on people's satisfaction and quality of life. Retention in ball and bar attachment and overall satisfaction in bar and clip attachment were significantly higher than locator. The type of attachment has no effect on implant anchorage problems and prosthetic problems.
Conclusion: The level of satisfaction and quality of life of patients using implant-supported overdenture in mandible did not affected by gender. Also, the type of attachment could not affect the prosthetic and implant problems, and the quality of life improved with the increase in the number of implants.
Keywords: Implant-supported, Overdenture, Quality of life, Patient satisfaction

1. Kim H-Y, Lee J-Y, Shin S-W, Bryant SRJTjoap. Attachment systems for mandibular implant overdentures: a systematic review. J Adv Prosthodont 2012; 4(4): 197-203.
2. Fenton AH. The decade of overdentures: 1970-1980. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 79(1): 31-6.
3. Carlsson GE. Clinical morbidity and sequelae of treatment with complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 79(1): 17-23.
4. Gotfredsen K, Holm B. Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or bar attachments: a randomized prospective 5-year study. Int J Prosthodont 2000; 13(2): 125-30.
5. van Kampen F, Cune M, van der Bilt A, Bosman F. Retention and postinsertion maintenance of bar‐clip, ball and magnet attachments in mandibular implant overdenture treatment: an in vivo comparison after 3 months of function. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003; 14(6): 720-6.
6. Tokuhisa M, Matsushita Y, Koyano K. ln vitro study of a mandibular implant overdenture retained with ball, magnet, or bar attachments: comparison of load transfer and denture stability. Int J Prosthodont 2003; 16(2): 128-34.
7. Botega DM, Mesquita MF, Henriques GE, Vaz LG. Retention force and fatigue strength of overdenture attachment systems. J Oral Rehabil 2004; 31(9): 884-9.
8. Botega DM, Mesquita MF, Henriques GEP, Vaz LG. Retention force and fatigue strength of overdenture attachment systems. J Oral Rehabil 2004; 31(9): 884-9.
9. Cune M, van Kampen F, van der Bilt A, Bosman F. Patient satisfaction and preference with magnet, bar-clip, and ball-socket retained mandibular implant overdentures: a cross-over clinical trial. Int J Prosthodont 2005; 18(2): 99-105.
10. Cakarer S, Can T, Yaltirik M, Keskin C. Complications associated with the ball, bar and Locator attachments for implant-supported overdentures. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011; 16(7): e953-9.
11. Mackie A, Lyons K, Thomson WM, Payne AGT. Mandibular two-implant overdentures: three-year prosthodontic maintenance using the locator attachment system. Int J Prosthodont 2011; 24(4): 328-31.
12. Alzarea BK. Assessment and Evaluation of Quality of Life (OHRQoL) of Patients with Dental Implants Using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) - A Clinical Study. J Clin Diagn Res 2016; 10(4): ZC57-60.
13. Candel-Marti E, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Penarrocha-Diago M, Penarrocha-Diago M. Satisfaction and quality of life with palatal positioned implants in severely atrophic maxillae versus conventional implants supporting fixed full-arch prostheses. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2015; 20(6): e751-e756.
14. Nickenig HJ, Wichmann M, Terheyden H, Kreppel M. Oral health-related quality of life and implant therapy: A prospective multicenter study of preoperative, intermediate, and posttreatment assessment. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surgery 2016; 44(6): 753-7.
15. Larsson P, List T, Lundstrom I, Marcusson A, Ohrbach R. Reliability and validity of a Swedish version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-S). Acta Odontol Scand 2004; 62(3): 147-52.
16. Locker D, Matear D, Stephens M, Lawrence H, Payne B. Comparison of the GOHAI and OHIP-14 as measures of the oral health-related quality of life of the elderly. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2001; 29(5): 373-81.
17. Montero-Martin J, Bravo-Perez M, Albaladejo-Martinez A, Hernandez-Martin LA, Rosel-Gallardo EM. Validation the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14sp) for adults in Spain. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2009; 14(1): E44-50.
18. Büyükerkmen EB, Öncü E. Evaluation Quality of Life of Patients Wearing Implant- Supported Overdentures and Conventional Complete Dentures. Austin J Dent 2017; 4(4): 1-4.
19. Rismanchian M, Mostajeran E. Evaluation of maximum bite force and satisfaction in patients with conventional full denture and over denture supported by mandibular dental implant. J Isfahan Dent Sch 2007; 2(4): 23-8. [In Persian].
20. Sadig W. A comparative in vitro study on the retention and stability of implant-supported overdentures. Quintessence Int 2009; 40(4): 313-9.
21. Ahmadzadeh A, Fereidoonpoor N. Comparison of Retentive Strength in Variable Attachment Systems in Implant-Supported Overdenture. J Mashhad Dent Sch 2012; 36(4): 259-70. [In Persian].
22. Mumcu E, Bilhan H, Geckili O. The effect of attachment type and implant number on satisfaction and quality of life of mandibular implant-retained overdenture wearers. Gerodontology 2012; 29(2): e618-23.
23. Burns DR, Unger JW, Coffey JP, Waldrop TC, Elswick RK Jr. Randomized, prospective, clinical evaluation of prosthodontic modalities for mandibular implant overdenture treatment. J Prosthet Dent 2011; 106(1): 12-22.
24. Timmerman R, Stoker GT, Wismeijer D, Oosterveld P, Vermeeren JIJ, van Waas MAJ. An eight-year follow-up to a randomized clinical trial of participant satisfaction with three types of mandibular implant-retained overdentures. J Dent Res 2004; 83(8): 630-3.
25. Viswambaran M, Arora V, Gupta SH, Dhiman RK, Thiruvalluvan N. A clinico radiographic study of immediate loading implants in rehabilitation of mandibular ridges. Med J Armed Forces India 2015; 71(Suppl 2): S346-S354.
26. Goncalves F, Campestrini VLL, Rigo-Rodrigues MA, Zanardi PR. Effect of the attachment system on the biomechanical and clinical performance of overdentures: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 123(4): 589-94.
27. Awad MA, Lund JP, Dufresne E, Feine JS. 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(2): 117-22.
28. Reissmann DR, Dard M, Lamprecht R, Struppek J, Heydecke G. Oral health-related quality of life in subjects with implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review. J Dent 2017; 65: 22-40.
29. Jabbour Z, Emami E, de Grandmont P, Rompre PH, Feine JS. Is oral health-related quality of life stable following rehabilitation with mandibular two-implant overdentures? Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23(10): 1205-9.