Share Page:

Volume 16 , Issue 3
May/June 2003

Pages 307–312

Relationship Between Prosthodontic Evaluation and Patient Ratings of Mandibular Conventional and Implant Prostheses

Guido Heydecke, DDS, Dr Med Dent/Esa Klemetti, DDS, PhD/Manal A. Awad, DDS, PhD/James P. Lund, BDS, PhD/Jocelyne S. Feine, DDS, HDR

PMID: 12854797

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare clinicians’ ratings of the state of oral tissues and their satisfaction with treatment to edentulous patients’ ratings of treatment success after provision of mandibular implant overdentures or conventional dentures. Materials and Methods: Sixty subjects randomly received either mandibular overdentures retained by two implants (n = 30) or new conventional mandibular complete dentures (n = 30). All were given new conventional maxillary dentures. Baseline measures included clinical evaluation of the oral soft and hard tissues. Patients rated their general satisfaction before and after treatment, as well as their satisfaction with stability, speech, and esthetics on visual analogue scales. The treating prosthodontist rated the dentures for the same categories. Patient and clinician ratings were compared using correlations, t tests, and linear regression. Results: None of the clinical variables were significantly correlated with patient satisfaction before or after treatment. The prosthodontist rated mandibular implant overdentures significantly better than conventional dentures regarding general satisfaction, stability, speech, and esthetics. Implant overdentures were also easier to fabricate (P < .0001). The prosthodontists’ scores were not significantly correlated with patient scores for any question. Conclusion: Clinicians’ assessments of the quality of denture-supporting tissues are poor predictors of patient satisfaction with mandibular implant or conventional prostheses. Prosthodontists and patients both rate mandibular implant overdentures as significantly superior to conventional dentures, but patients and clinicians do not usually agree when evaluating individual prostheses. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:307–312.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article


Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.


© 2020 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc

IJP Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us