Cost and complications associated with implant-supported overdentures with a resilient-attachment system: A retrospective study

Abstract

Statement of problemImplant-supported overdentures with a splinted or nonsplinted attachment system have been a successful treatment option for edentulous mandibles with excessive hard tissue resorption. Currently, the 2 most common treatment approaches for an implant overdenture uses either a bar attachment system (splinted) or resilient (LOCATOR)-attachment system (nonsplinted). The LOCATOR-attachment system is often chosen for the lower initial cost. However, whether the ongoing maintenance costs of the LOCATOR-attachment system increase the overall cost of this system is unclear. PurposeThe purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate the frequency of maintenance procedures, complications, and costs associated with the LOCATOR-supported overdenture treatment. Material and methodsThe retrospective data of 75 patients who had received implant-supported overdentures with LOCATOR-attachments at the University of Colorado School of Dental Medicine in the previous 10 years were collected and screened to evaluate the number of maintenance visits, type of complications, and cost (actual fees for the service) of the maintenance visits. The data were analyzed, and the mean values calculated. ResultsThe average number of maintenance visits was 7.7 in the mean observation time of 5.2 years. Replacement of the attachment was the most frequent complication (63%). The average maintenance cost charged to the patient for maintenance was 56.2% ($795) of the initial cost over the average 5.2 years of follow-up. The average total maintenance cost (actual fees for the service) was 95.4% ($1349) of the initial cost over the average of 5.2 years of follow-up. The average maintenance cost adjusted or lost over the 5.2 years follow-up was 39.2%. ConclusionsThe 5-year costs for the maintenance of mandibular overdentures with a LOCATOR-attachment system were equal to or higher than the initial cost of the treatment. The number of maintenance visits and the cost were higher for patients who were older than 75 years