Page 48 - Impact of implant retained overdenture treatment and speech, oromyofunction, social participation and quality of life.

46
Chapter 2
all stages of the treatment because this sound seems very vulnerable when changes are made to the oral environment. We expect no significant impact of the treatment on oromyofunctional behavior. Based on previous literature on patient-related outcomes in overdentures, it is to expect that the impact on OHRQoL will improve after full treatment and the satisfaction with oral health will rise.
Methods and materials
Patient selection and clinical treatment procedure
This study was part of a project assessing clinical outcome of 2 different dental implants inserted in 22 mandibles. The implants were placed in the crest at two different depth positions. At the supracrestal and mucosal levels both implants received identically shaped abutments. The overdenture bar was screw- retained in a similar way on both abutments. Hence, the implant aspects are not affecting the outcome reported in this paper. All patients were edentulous in both jaws at intake. We may refer to Glibert et al. 2018 27 for detailed description of the protocol and the implant-related outcome.
The participants of this prospective case series signed up for treatment at the dental clinic of the Ghent University Hospital, searching for a stable alternative for their conventional denture in the mandibula. Only patients with a fully edentulous maxilla and mandible for at least 4 months, that didn’t suffer from systemic diseases and were non-smokers were included. As they could possibly affect articulation, the following criteria were assessed at intake: hearing disorders according to the patient, neurological disorders and a history of speech therapy.
One of the 22 patients preferred not to participate in the part of speech and oromyofunctional examination for personal reasons. Twenty-one patients (11 females and 10 males) participated in the speech and oromyofunctional assessment. During the intake examination, six patients reported hearing disorders. This group was analyzed post hoc on possible differences in outcome. There was no significant difference between the ‘hearing disorders group’ and the ‘normal hearing group’ for speech in all stages (1-3) of the treatment (resp.: p=0.085; p=0.251; p=0.401). Hence it was concluded that both groups could be