Functional performance and impact on the quality of life of three treatment strategies for mandibular edentulism: Results of a parallel 3-group cross-sectional study

Fernanda Faot,Helena Cristina Fernandes Carter Petiz,Amália Machado Bielemann,Anna Paula Da Rosa Possebon,Noeli Boscato,Otacílio Luiz Chagas-Júnior,Luciana De Rezende Pinto

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104625

Fernanda Faot, Helena Cristina Fernandes Carter Petiz + Show 5 more

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104625

Copy DOI

Abstract

ObjectivesThis parallel cross-sectional study compared masticatory function and patient-centered outcomes among 3 removable treatment strategies for mandibular edentulism. MethodsThirty-six edentulous participants rehabilitated using 3 removable treatment strategies for mandibular edentulism were allocated to one of the three groups (n=12): CCD (control), 2-IMO, and 3-IMO. Narrow diameter implants were installed using single-stage surgery and conventionally loaded with stud abutments. After 3 months of usage, the quality of life, maximum bite force, and masticatory function were evaluated. Data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis test and post hoc pairwise Mann–Whitney tests with Bonferroni correction (α=0.05). ResultsThe 2-IMO and 3-IMO wearers did not show significant differences in any outcome, except for the 2 domains of 3-IMO wearers quality of life that obtained better Pain and General Performance scores. Both IMO groups presented significantly higher maximum bite force than CCD wearers. The 2-IMO wearers showed superior outcomes to the CCD group in all outcomes of the masticatory performance test and the X50, B and ME5.6 outcomes of the swallowing threshold test (p = 0.01), while 3-IMO participants only showed superior masticatory performance in terms of lower X50 values (19.86%, p = 0.02) and higher ME 2.8 (141.15%, p = 0.04) than CCD wearers. ConclusionsCompared to 2-IMO wearers, 3-IMO wearers report superior impact of treatment on daily living activities in the Pain and General Performance domains. 2-IMO and 3-IMO wearers showed no significant differences between them for all evaluated bite force and masticatory function parameters. Clinical SignificanceAlthough overdentures retained by 3 implants (3-IMO) provide biomechanical advantages over those retained by 2 implants (2-IMO), superior clinical and functional effectiveness is not yet proven.

Full Text