PDF icon PDF herunterladen
Open Access
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1809912
Original Article

Patient Satisfaction and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life of Quadrilateral Bar versus Bilateral Linear Bar for Mandibular Implant Overdenture: Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Heba Wageh Abozaed
1   Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia
2   Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Eldakahlia, Egypt
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar aufeRef
  Lizenzen und Reprints
Preview

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate four implant complete mandibular overdentures retained with different bar designs regarding patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL).

Material and Methods

Twenty participants were selected for this study. Each participant received four implants in the mandibular canine and first molar regions. All patients were divided into two equal groups based on their bar designs: quadrilateral (group I) and bilateral linear (group II). A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to quantify patient satisfaction, and OHRQoL was determined using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14). Three months later, the VAS and OHIP-14 questions were evaluated.

Statistical Analysis

For properly distributed data, continuous variables were shown as mean ± standard deviation. The Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare the two groups. The significance criterion is set at the 5% level. When p < 0.05, the results were deemed significant.

Results

Patient satisfaction differs significantly between the two groups, as the quadrilateral bar designs enhance denture support and retention (p = 0.034*) and biting or chewing food (p = 0.019*). However, bilateral linear bar designs improve denture comfort (p = 0.014*) and hygiene practices (p = 0.007*). There were no significant variations between the two attachment designs in the remaining items of VAS and OHIP-14 questions, except that the bilateral linear bar configuration demonstrated higher scores in functional limitation (p = 0.02*).

Conclusion

The quadrilateral bar demonstrated greater patient satisfaction than the bilateral linear bar regarding denture stability/retention and biting or chewing food. However, the bilateral linear bars increase patient satisfaction with denture comfort and the ease of hygienic procedures. Furthermore, regarding the functional limitations of the OHIP-14 questions, the bilateral linear bar provides higher scores than the quadrilateral ones.

Keywords

implant - overdenture - quadrilateral bar - bilateral linear bar - satisfaction - quality of life

Data Availability Statement

The data sets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.




Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
08. Juli 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Hsu YJ, Lin JR, Hsu JF. Patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes and oral health-related quality of life after treatment with traditional and modified protocols for complete dentures. J Dent Sci 2021; 16 (01) 236-240
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Bakker MH, Vissink A, Meijer HJA, Raghoebar GM, Visser A. Mandibular implant-supported overdentures in (frail) elderly: a prospective study with 20-year follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019; 21 (04) 586-592
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Doornewaard R, Glibert M, Matthys C, Vervaeke S, Bronkhorst E, de Bruyn H. Improvement of quality of life with implant-supported mandibular overdentures and the effect of implant type and surgical procedure on bone and soft tissue stability: a three-year prospective split-mouth trial. J Clin Med 2019; 8 (06) 773
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Salehi R, Shayegh SS, Johnston WM, Hakimaneh SMR. Effects of interimplant distance and cyclic dislodgement on retention of LOCATOR and ball attachments: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 122 (06) 550-556
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Sutariya PV, Shah HM, Patel SD, Upadhyay HH, Pathan MR, Shah RP. Mandibular implant-supported overdenture: a systematic review and meta-analysis for optimum selection of attachment system. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2021; 21 (04) 319-327
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Ciftci G, Somay SD, Ozcan I, Ozcelik TB, Yilmaz B. Prosthetic complications with mandibular bar-retained implant overdentures having distal attachments and metal frameworks: a 2- to 12-year retrospective analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2023; 130 (04) 573-580
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Chae SK, Cho WT, Choi JW. et al. Comparison of retentive force and wear pattern of Locator® and ADD-TOC attachments combined with CAD-CAM milled bar. J Adv Prosthodont 2022; 14 (01) 12-21
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Fromentin O, Lassauzay C, Abi Nader S, Feine J, de Albuquerque Junior RF. Testing the retention of attachments for implant overdentures - validation of an original force measurement system. J Oral Rehabil 2010; 37 (01) 54-62
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Emera RMK, Altonbary GY. Retention force of zirconia bar retained implant overdenture: clinical comparative study between PEEK and plastic clips. Int Dent Res 2019; 9: 92-98
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Nassar HI, Abdelaziz MS. Retention of bar clip attachment for mandibular implant overdenture. BMC Oral Health 2022; 22 (01) 227
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Botega DM, Mesquita MF, Henriques GEP, Vaz LG. Retention force and fatigue strength of overdenture attachment systems. J Oral Rehabil 2004; 31 (09) 884-889
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Brokelman RBG, Haverkamp D, van Loon C, Hol A, van Kampen A, Veth R. The validation of the visual analogue scale for patient satisfaction after total hip arthroplasty. Eur Orthop Traumatol 2012; 3 (02) 101-105
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Tosun B, Uysal N. Examination of oral health quality of life and patient satisfaction in removable denture wearers with OHIP-14 scale and visual analog scale: a cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health 2024; 24 (01) 1353
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Mahanna FF, Elsyad MA, Mourad SI, Abozaed HW. Satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life of different attachments used for implant-retained overdentures in subjects with resorbed mandibles: a crossover trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2020; 35 (02) 423-431
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Yunus N, Saub R, Taiyeb Ali TB, Salleh NM, Baig MR. Patient-based and clinical outcomes of implant telescopic attachment-retained mandibular overdentures: a 1-year longitudinal prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 (05) 1149-1156
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Kucukkurt S, Tùkel HC. Does the number of implants or the type of attachment affect patient satisfaction with implant-retained mandibular overdentures?. J Osseointeg 2020; 12: 154-160
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Chai HH, Gao SS, Chen KJ, Lo ECM, Duangthip D, Chu CH. Tools evaluating child oral health–related quality of life. Int Dent J 2024; 74 (01) 15-24
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Slade GD. Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1997; 25 (04) 284-290
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Elsyad MA, Alokda MM, Gebreel AA, Hammouda NI, Habib AA. Effect of two designs of implant-supported overdentures on peri-implant and posterior mandibular bone resorptions: a 5-year prospective radiographic study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28 (10) e184-e192
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Mourad KE, Emera RMK, Habib A. Effect of different implant positions for two implant-retained mandibular overdenture: a retrospective 5-years radiographic evaluation of the circumferential peri-implant bone loss and posterior ridge resorptive changes. BMC Oral Health 2024; 24 (01) 1161
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 de Souza RF, Bedos C, Esfandiari S. et al. Single-implant overdentures retained by the Novaloc attachment system: study protocol for a mixed-methods randomized cross-over trial. Trials 2018; 19 (01) 243
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Elsyad MA. Patient satisfaction and prosthetic aspects with mini-implants retained mandibular overdentures. A 5-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27 (07) 926-933
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Elsyad MA, Mostafa AZ. Effect of telescopic distal extension removable partial dentures on oral health related quality of life and maximum bite force: a preliminary cross over study. J Esthet Restor Dent 2018; 30 (01) 14-21
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Elsyad MA, Khairallah AS. Chewing efficiency and maximum bite force with different attachment systems of implant overdentures: a crossover study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28 (06) 677-682
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Kim HY, Lee JY, Shin SW, Bryant SR. Attachment systems for mandibular implant overdentures: a systematic review. J Adv Prosthodont 2012; 4 (04) 197-203
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Elsyad MA, Hegazy SAF, Hammouda NI, Al-Tonbary GY, Habib AA. Chewing efficiency and electromyographic activity of masseter muscle with three designs of implant-supported mandibular overdentures. A cross-over study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014; 25 (06) 742-748
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Singla N. Evaluation of patient satisfaction in implant-supported dentures retained with ball and bar attachment through verbal rating system. Int J Exp Dent Sci 2011; 6: 1-5
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Flytström I, Stenberg B, Svensson Å, Bergbrant IM. Patients' visual analogue scale: a useful method for assessing psoriasis severity. Acta Derm Venereol 2012; 92 (04) 347-348
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Helmy M, Elkhadem A. Validation of maintenance requirements and patient satisfaction of classical implant locators versus customized attachments in mandibular implant-retained overdentures. Egypt J Oral& Maxillofac Sur 2023; 14: 66-75
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Takahashi T, Gonda T, Tomita A, Maeda Y. Effect of attachment type on implant strain in maxillary implant overdentures: comparison of ball, locator, and magnet attachments. part 2: palateless dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018; 33 (02) 357-364
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Elsyad MA, Khairallah AS, Shawky AF. Changes in the edentulous maxilla with ball and telescopic attachments of implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a 4-year retrospective study. Quintessence Int 2013; 44 (07) 487-495
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Limpuangthip N, Somkotra T, Arksornnukit M. Modified retention and stability criteria for complete denture wearers: a risk assessment tool for impaired masticatory ability and oral health-related quality of life. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 120 (01) 43-49
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Boven GC, Meijer HJA, Vissink A, Raghoebar GM. Maxillary implant overdentures retained by use of bars or locator attachments: 1-year findings from a randomized controlled trial. J Prosthodont Res 2020; 64 (01) 26-33
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 34 Lachmann S, Kimmerle-Müller E, Gehring K. et al. A comparison of implant-supported, bar- or ball-retained mandibular overdentures: a retrospective clinical, microbiologic, and immunologic study of 10 edentulous patients attending a recall visit. Int J Prosthodont 2007; 20 (01) 37-42
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar