A within‐subject clinical trial on the conversion of mandibular two‐implant to three‐implant overdenture: Patient‐centered outcomes and willingness to pay

Abstract

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.

Mandibular two‐implant overdentures with CAD‐CAM milled bars with distal extensions or retentive anchors: A randomized controlled trial

“…The more stable and retentive the denture, the need is less for the central nervous system to alter habitual movement pattern to function with the denture (Müller et al., 1995). However, studies report that the 2‐implant IOD on ball attachment presents a rotational axis and consequently do not prevent the posterior denture saddles from sinking in (Emami et al., 2015, 2019; Kimoto et al., 2011). This may not be the case for the distal‐extension bar overdentures (Tang et al., 1999).…”

People’s Willingness to Pay for Dental Checkups and the Associated Individual Characteristics: A Nationwide Web-Based Survey among Japanese Adults

“…Although many WTP studies have reported on dental treatment [15][16][17][18][19][20], few have focused on receiving dental checkups [21,22]. A previous study [22] related to the results of this study showed that the WTP values for dental checkups were evaluated by targeting patients in dental clinics, with a median WTP value of 2000 yen (mean: 2252.6 yen) for regular visitors and a median WTP value of 2000 yen (mean: 2124.9 yen) for infrequent visitors.…”

“…This method evaluates the Willingness to Pay (WTP), which is "the maximum amount of monetary value that an individual would be willing to sacrifice to obtain the benefit of that healthcare service," through questionnaires or face-to-face interviews based on a hypothetical scenario regarding the healthcare service [12][13][14]. Several studies have reported on WTP for dental treatments, including preventive treatment of dental caries [15,16], periodontal disease [17], dental implant treatment [18,19], and orthodontic treatment [20]. The findings of studies on WTP can be used to perform economic evaluations of desired healthcare services by the general population and are expected to be a resource for policy planning regarding oral health [13].…”