1. Patient satisfaction and oral health‐related quality of life for four implant‐assisted mandibular overdentures fabricated with CAD/CAM milled poly methyl methacrylate, CAD/CAM‐milled poly ether ether ketone, or conventional poly methyl methacrylate: A crossover clinical trial
- Author
-
Gomaa, Amira M., Mostafa, Aisha Z. H., and El‐Shaheed, Noha H.
- Subjects
- *
DENTAL implants , *POLYMETHYLMETHACRYLATE , *KRUSKAL-Wallis Test , *STATISTICS , *DENTAL equipment , *DENTURES , *COMPUTER-aided design , *ORAL health , *DENTAL materials , *PATIENT satisfaction , *EDENTULOUS mouth , *VISUAL analog scale , *RANDOMIZED controlled trials , *QUALITY of life , *QUESTIONNAIRES , *DESCRIPTIVE statistics , *SMELL , *CROSSOVER trials , *STATISTICAL sampling , *DATA analysis , *SPEECH , *PSYCHOLOGICAL stress ,MANDIBLE surgery - Abstract
Background: New materials for overdenture base construction were evolved. Thus, more clinical trials are needed to validate these materials. Objective: This study aimed to compare the difference between CAD/CAM‐milled poly methyl methacrylate (PMMA), poly ether ether ketone (PEEK) and conventional mandibular implant‐assisted overdentures regarding patient satisfaction and oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQL). Methods: This randomised, crossover, clinical study included 18 completely edentulous subjects rehabilitated with three mandibular implant‐assisted overdentures with three different denture base materials opposing a maxillary single denture. These materials were as follows: CAD/CAM‐milled PMMA, CAD/CAM‐milled PEEK and conventional PMMA. Every participant first received each mandibular overdenture in a random manner. After 6 months of each overdenture use, patient satisfaction and oral health‐related quality of life were assessed using visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP‐EDENT‐19), respectively, and then crossover to other groups was done. The same was repeated to the last group. Comparison of VAS and OHIP‐EDENT‐19 between groups was done using Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Bonferroni test. Results: Regarding all the VAS items, there were statistically significant higher scores for CAD/CAM‐milled PMMA and PEEK than conventional PMMA base except for speech, aesthetic and smell. Regarding OHIP‐EDENT‐19, many items revealed statistically lower problem scores for CAD/CAM‐milled PMMA, and CAD/CAM‐milled PEEK than conventional PMMA base except psychological discomfort, psychological disability and social disability. Conclusion: Within the limit of this study, CAD/CAM‐milled PMMA and CAD/CAM‐milled PEEK were recommended as implant‐assisted overdenture bases as it revealed higher patient satisfaction and better oral health‐related quality of life in comparison with conventional PMMA implant‐assisted overdenture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF