Our findings suggest that, although mandibular implant-retained overdentures may be more satisfying for edentulous patients than new conventional dentures, the magnitude of the effect is still uncertain. There is a need for additional evidence including cost-effectiveness analyses on the impact of mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures.

In a within-subject cross-over clinical trial, psychometric and functional measurements were taken while 15 completely edentulous subjects wore mandibular fixed prostheses and long-bar removable implant-supported prostheses. In this paper, the results of a psychometric assessment are presented. Eight subjects first received the fixed bridge and seven the removable type. After having worn a prosthesis for a minimum of two months, subjects responded to psychometric scales that measured their perceptions of various factors associated with prostheses. They also chewed test foods while masticatory activity was recorded. The prostheses were then changed and the procedures repeated. At the end of the study, patients were asked to choose the prosthesis that they wished to keep. Patients assigned significantly higher scores, on visual analogue scales, to both types of implant-supported prostheses than to their original conventional prostheses for all factors tested, including general satisfaction. However, no statistically significant differences between the two implant-supported prostheses were detected except for the difficulty of chewing carrot, apple, and sausage. For these foods, the fixed prostheses were rated higher. Subjects' responses to category scales were consistent with their responses to the visual analogue scales. These results suggest that, although patients find the fixed bridge to be significantly better for chewing harder foods, there is no difference in their general satisfaction with the two types of prostheses.

Although previous studies have demonstrated that implant-supported prostheses are more satisfactory and efficient for edentulous patients than are conventional prostheses, until now no investigation has directly compared different types of implant-supported prostheses. We carried out a within-subject cross-over clinical trial with fixed and long-bar removable implant-supported mandibular prostheses. Fifteen subjects were randomly divided into two groups. One group received the fixed prosthesis first, while the other first received the removable. After a two-month adaptation period, psychometric measurements of various aspects of the prostheses and physiological tests of masticatory efficiency were carried out. The prostheses were then changed, and the procedures repeated. At the end of the study, subjects chose the prosthesis they wished to keep. In this paper, we report on the data gathered at this last appointment. Eight subjects chose the fixed (F group), and seven chose the removable (R group). Both groups rated stability and ability to chew with the fixed as significantly better than with the removable. However, the R group rated ease of cleaning as the most important factor governing their decision, followed by esthetics and stability. The F group considered stability to be the most important factor in their decision, followed by chewing ability and ability to clean. There was a tendency for the removable to be chosen by older subjects (+50 years). These results suggest that patients choose fixed or removable implant-supported prostheses for specific reasons, and that patient attitudes should be considered when the design of a prosthesis is being planned for an individual patient.

In the past, fixed prostheses were believed to be more efficient implant-supported devices than removable types for edentulous patients. However, this hypothesis was never properly tested. Therefore, a within-subject crossover clinical trial was designed in which 145 completely edentulous subjects were tested wearing implant-supported mandibular fixed prostheses and long-bar overdentures. Eight subjects received the fixed appliance first and seven the removable type. The patients' perceptions of various characteristics of the implant-supported prostheses were measured after a minimum of two months' adaptation. Mandibular movements and jaw muscle electromyographic activity were recorded while the patients chewed five standard-sized test foods: bread, apple, hard cheese, sausage, and raw carrot. The prostheses were then changed, worn for the same period of adaptation, and the procedures repeated. There were three test sessions per prosthesis, and each included five trials per food. The measurements were repeated three times at one-week intervals. Mastication time was found to be shorter for three foods (bread, cheese, and sausage) when subjects wore the long-bar overdenture. The vertical amplitude of the masticatory strokes was significantly less with the overdenture for all foods except carrot. Cycle duration was significantly longer with the overdenture for sausage and carrot. Contrary to what might be expected, the long-bar overdenture appears to be no less efficient than the fixed prosthesis. Furthermore, these data suggest that patients are capable of adapting their masticatory movements to the characteristics of the two prostheses.

The efficacy of occlusal splints in diminishing muscle activity and tooth-grinding damage remains controversial. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of an occlusal splint (OS) vs. a palatal control device (PCD). Nine subjects with sleep bruxism (SB) participated in this randomized study. Sleep laboratory recordings were made on the second night to establish baseline data. Patients then wore each of the splints in the sleep laboratory for recording nights three and four, two weeks apart, according to a crossover design. A statistically significant reduction in the number of SB episodes per hour (decrease of 41%, p = 0.05) and SB bursts per hour (decrease of 40%, p < 0.05) was observed with the two devices. Both oral devices also showed 50% fewer episodes with grinding noise (p = 0.06). No difference was observed between the devices. Moreover, no changes in respiratory variables were observed. Both devices reduced muscle activity associated with SB.

The etiology of denture stomatitis remains controversial. Trauma due to unstable dentures has been suggested as an etiological factor. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that the prevalence of denture stomatitis is reduced when mandibular dentures are stabilized by implants. Data were collected at a one-year follow-up from 173 edentulous elders who had randomly received mandibular implant overdentures or conventional dentures. The diagnosis of denture stomatitis was determined according to the Newton classification. Elders wearing conventional dentures were almost 5 times more likely to have denture stomatitis than those wearing mandibular two-implant overdentures (P < 0.0001, Fisher's exact test). Adjusted odds ratios showed that only the type of the prosthesis (AOR = 4.54, 95% CI 2.20 to 9.40) and nocturnal wear (AOR = 3.03, 95% CI 1.24 to 7.40) predict the frequency of denture stomatitis. Thus, implant overdentures may reduce oral mucosal trauma and control denture stomatitis.

Although maxillary implant overdentures are used in oral rehabilitation, different designs have not been compared previously in clinical trials. This crossover trial was designed to measure differences in patient satisfaction with maxillary long-bar implant overdentures with and without palatal coverage opposed by a fixed mandibular implant-supported prosthesis. Data were also gathered on new conventional dentures and on maxillary conventional dentures opposed by mandibular fixed prostheses. Sixteen participants were selected from a population wearing conventional dentures. Fifteen received new upper and lower dentures (1 drop-out). Four implants were placed in the maxilla and mandible (2 drop-outs). A mandibular fixed prosthesis was inserted in 13 participants, who were then divided into 2 groups. One group (n = 7) received long-bar overdentures with palate, then long-bar overdentures without palate. The other group (n = 6) received the same treatments in the reverse order. Mastication tests and psychometric evaluations using Visual Analog Scales and Categorical Scales were performed throughout the study. General satisfaction was very high with both maxillary implant-supported prostheses, as were ratings of almost all psychosocial and functional variables. There were no significant differences between treatments, suggesting that patients are equally satisfied with long-bar overdentures with and without palate when these are opposed by mandibular fixed prostheses. However, the ratings given to the maxillary implant prostheses were not significantly higher than for new conventional maxillary prostheses. This suggests that maxillary implant prostheses should not be considered as a general treatment of choice in patients with good bony support for maxillary conventional prostheses.

No abstract