Evaluation of Oral Health Related Quality of Life in Different Telescopic Two-implant Supported Mandibular Overdenture


  • Diana K. Shehata Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt
  • Emad M. Agamy Department of Prosthodontics, Vice Dean for Education and Student Affairs, Faculty of Dentistry, Minia University, Minya, Egypt
  • Gihan F. Mohammed Department of Prosthodontics, Vice President, Kantara University, Qantara, Egypt




Oral health impact profile, Oral health related quality of life, Telescopic overdenture, Two-implant mandibular overdenture


AIM: The purpose of the study was to evaluate patient’s oral health related quality of life using oral health impact profile (OHIP14) in rigid and non-rigid telescopic two-implant supported mandibular overdenture patients.

METHODS: Twelve completely edentulous patients received two mandibular interforaminal implants to retain telescopic overdenture opposed by maxillary complete denture. Group I (six patients) had rigid telescopic connection and Group II (six patients) received non-rigid telescopic attachments. OHIP14 questionnaire was translated in Arabic and orally asked the patients, answers were collected soon after denture insertion and use (within 1 week), 6 and 12 months after using the overdenture to assess patient’s quality of life.

RESULTS: There was no statistical significant difference regarding quality of life using OHIP14 questionnair between the two groups.

CONCLUSION: Telescopic two-implant mandibular overdenture showed high quality of life, great satisfaction, and acceptance among patients; regardless to the type of attachments rigid or non-rigid.


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block


Awad M, Rashid F, Feine J. Mandibular 2-implant overdentures improve oral health-related quality of life more than conventional dentures, but there are cultural differences. J Evid Base Dent Pract. 2014;14(3):133-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebdp.2014.07.004 PMid:25234214

Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, et al. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Gerodontology. 2002;19:3-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-2358.2002.00003.x PMid:12164236

Thomason JM, Feine J, Exley C, Moynihan P, Müller F, Naert I, et al. Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients-the York consensus statement. Br Dent J. 2009;207(4):185-186. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.728 PMid:19696851

Alqutaibi AY, Kaddah AF. Attachments used with implant supported overdenture. Int Dent Med J Adv Res. 2016;2:1-5.

Langer A. Telescope retainers and their clinical application. J Prosthet Dent. 1980;44(5):516-522. PMid:7003109

Heckmann S, Heckmann J, Weber H. Clinical outcomes of three Parkinson’s disease patients treated with mandibular implant overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000;11(6):566-71. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011006566.x PMid:11168250

Krennmair G, Seemann R, Weinlander M, Piehslinger E. Comparison of ball and telescopic crown attachments in implant-retained mandibular overdentures: A 5-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011;26(3):598-606. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02169.x PMid:21691608

Romanos G, May S, May D. Implant-supporting telescopic maxillary prostheses and immediate loading. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;16(3):412-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12003 PMid:22998571

Heckmann S, Winter W, Meyer M, Weber H, Wichmann M. Overdenture attachment selection and the loading of implant and denture-bearing area. Part 1: In vivo verification of stereolithographic model. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001;12(6):617-23. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120610.x PMid:11737106

Heckmann S, Winter W, Meyer M, Weber H, Wichmann M. Overdenture attachment selection and the loading of implant and denture-bearing area. Part 2: A methodical study using five types of attachment. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001;12(6):640-7. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120613.x PMid:11737109

Slade G. Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1997;25(4):284-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1997.tb00941.x PMid:9332805

Emami E, Heydecke G, Rompre P, de Grandmont P, Feine J. The impact of implant-support for mandibular dentures on satisfaction, oral and general health-related quality of life: A meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(6):533-544. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01693.x PMid:19515032

Khairallah A, Shawky A. Milled bar versus rigid telescopic attachment for mandibular implant supported overdentures. A study of patient satisfaction and oral health quality of life. Egypt Dent J. 2020;66:1183-93. https://doi.org/10.21608/edj.2020.25177.1065

Kuoppala R, Näpänkangas R, Raustia A. Outcome of implant-supported overdenture treatment- a survey of 58 patients. Gerodontology. 2012;29(2):577-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-2358.2011.00524.x PMid:22616909

Mahanna F, Elsyad M, Mourad S, Abozaed H. 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(2):423-31. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.7869 PMid:32142580




How to Cite

Shehata DK, Agamy EM, Mohammed GF. Evaluation of Oral Health Related Quality of Life in Different Telescopic Two-implant Supported Mandibular Overdenture. Open Access Maced J Med Sci [Internet]. 2021 Sep. 26 [cited 2022 Jan. 24];9(D):210-4. Available from: https://oamjms.eu/index.php/mjms/article/view/6815