Skip to content

Implant Retained Overdenture VERSUS Implant Canine Retained Overdenture.

Patient Satisfaction and Oral Health Related Quality of Life for Implant Retained Overdenture VERSUS Implant Canine Retained Overdenture. Crossover Clinical Study.

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07046104
Enrollment
10
Registered
2025-07-01
Start date
2023-01-12
Completion date
2024-08-07
Last updated
2025-07-01

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Oral Health Impact Profile Short Version 14 (OHIP 14)

Brief summary

ABSTRACT Background: mandibular class 1 modification 1 RPD can be retained by mesially placed implant only, or canines can be used to share in retention using telescopic attachment. So, the aim of this clinical study is to evaluate patient satisfaction and oral health impact profile (OHIP-14) for implant retained Overdenture versus implant-tooth retained Overdenture. Methods: This clinical cross-over study included 10 partially edentulous patients with only remaining mandibular canines. Every patient received two mandibular implants at the 1st premolar region. Two mandibular implant retained overdenture will be constructed, opposing a maxillary single denture. One of the dentures was made with a design based on implant retention only but the other denture was made with dual implant-tooth retention design. The effects of each overdenture design were evaluated after 3 months. patients indicated satisfaction with their prosthesis using a visual analog scale (VAS)Regarding VAS, participants were asked to score their answer according to the amount of satisfaction on a 100 mm line (Score 0 = no satisfaction at all and score 100 = complete satisfaction). The questions cover several items related to overdentures such as retention, stability, comfort, ease of cleaning, ease of speaking, ease of chewing, limited activities due to embarrassment, quality of bolus, and appearance. , and oral health impact profile (OHIP-14) was recorded for both prostheses. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was done to compare the statistically significant difference between the two groups. SPSS ver.23. P \<.05 was considered significant.

Interventions

OTHERimplant retained overdenture prosthesis

implant retained only prosthesis

OTHERimplant canine retained overdenture prosthesis

prosthesis retention from implant and canine

Sponsors

Mansoura University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* This research will be done on patients who were previously received 2 mesially placed implants in the 1st premolar region with only two remaining mandibular canines with opposing maxillary single denture

Exclusion criteria

* uncontrolled diabetic patients

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
patients indicated satisfaction with their prosthesis using a visual analog scale (VAS)3 months

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
oral health impact profile (OHIP-14) was recorded for both prostheses.3 months

Countries

Egypt

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026