title: Use of implant-supported prostheses in edentulous mandibles among prosthodontists in Sweden.
abstract: The aim of this study was to investigate the production of mandibular implant-supported fixed and removable prostheses among prosthodontic specialists in Sweden and to compare the results with findings in a similar study made in 2001 (17). Questionnaires regarding treatment with mandibular implant prostheses during 20011 were mailed to all specialists in prosthodontics in Sweden (n = 156, according to available data). Of the 156 questionnaires, 129 (83%) were returned and of those 114 were completed. The reported number of treatments with mandibular implant-supported prostheses varied much among the specialists. Fixed implant prostheses were more common than overdentures (means 11 and 3, median values 8 and 2, respectively). However, the range was large for both alternatives. Ten (9%) of the specialists reported no treatment with fixed implant prostheses while 29 (25%) had not made any implant overdenture during 2011. The most common anchorage system for overdentures in 2011 (as well as in 2001) was two un-splinted implants with ball attachments or Locator abutments. The most common reasons for choosing overdenture treatment instead of a fixed implant prosthesis in 2011 were the reduced cost and the patient's main wish to improve denture retention. A majority of the prosthodontists (58%) reported that patients with implant overdentures were as satisfied as those with fixed implant-supported prostheses, whereas 40% claimed they were less satisfied. Two respondents (2%) considered that overdenture patients were more satisfied than those with a fixed prosthesis. It can be concluded that the general attitude among Swedish prosthodontists towards implant overdentures has not changed much during the 10-year period between the present and the previous investigation.An overdenture is still a seldom-used option in implant treatment of patients with edentulous mandibles in Sweden. Instead, a fixed implant-supported prosthesis continues to be the preferred option,
authors.forename: Aron
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Ascher
authors.forename: Gunnar E
authors.initials: GE
authors.lastname: Carlsson
authors.forename: Mats
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Kronström
mesh_terms: D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D017046:Cost Savings; D059605:Dental Implant-Abutment Design / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D015921:Dental Implants / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D019094:Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D003815:Dentists / Q000523:psychology; D003781:Denture Retention / Q000295:instrumentation; D003828:Denture, Overlay / Q000191:economics / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D003778:Dentures / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D006301:Health Services Needs and Demand / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D006801:Humans; D007575:Jaw, Edentulous / Q000534:rehabilitation* / Q000601:surgery; D008334:Mandible / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011476:Prosthodontics / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D013548:Sweden
chemical_list: D015921:Dental Implants