HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Stoker, G.T. Articles by van Waas, M.A.J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Stoker, G.T. Articles by van Waas, M.A.J.

An Eight-year Follow-up to a Randomized Clinical Trial of Aftercare and Cost-analysis with Three Types of Mandibular Implant-retained Overdentures

¹ Free University, Department of Oral Function, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, Dental School, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and
² Amphia Teaching Hospital, Department of Special Dental Care and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, Breda, The Netherlands

³ corresponding author, Hogeweg 5, NL-3212 LG Simonshaven, The Netherlands, geertstoker{at}wxs.nl

Mandibular implant overdentures increase satisfaction and the quality of life of edentulous individuals. Long-term aftercare and costs may depend on the type of overdentures. One hundred and ten individuals received one of 3 types of implant-retained overdentures, randomly assigned, and were evaluated with respect to aftercare and costs. The follow-up time was 8 years, with only seven drop-outs. No significant differences (Kruskal-Wallis test) were observed for direct costs of aftercare (p = 0.94). The initial costs constituted 75% of the total costs and were significantly higher in the group with a bar on 4 implants, compared with the group with a bar on 2 implants and the group with ball attachments on 2 implants (p = 0.018). The last group needed a significantly higher number of prosthodontist-patient aftercare contacts, mostly for re-adjustment of the retentive system. It can be concluded that an overdenture with a bar on 2 implants might be the most efficient in the long term.

KEY WORDS: randomized controlled clinical trial • edentulism • cost-analysis • aftercare • implant-retained overdentures

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Visser, G. M. Raghoebar, H. J.A. Meijer, A. Vissink, G. Stoker, D. Wismeijer, and R. van Waas LETTERS TO THE EDITOR J. Dent. Res., October 1, 2007; 86(10): 919 - 920. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. de Lange, A.V. van Gool, G. Stoker, D. Wismeijer, and R. van Waas LETTERS TO THE EDITOR J. Dent. Res., October 1, 2007; 86(10): 920 - 921. [Full Text] [PDF]