Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 8, 2026
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
Patients' evaluation of two occlusal schemes for implant overdentures
John M Aarts1, Alan G T Payne, W Murray Thomson
1Department of Oral Rehabilitation, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, PO Box 647, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Background:
There is an absence of conclusive evidence for occlusal schemes in implant overdentures.
Purpose:
To investigate the consequences of two different occlusal schemes on levels of satisfaction for patients wearing implant overdentures.
Materials And Methods:
Within an existing randomized controlled clinical trial, a physiologic occlusal scheme was compared with a lingualized occlusal scheme for 18 selected participants all with implant overdentures. Nine participants had conventional maxillary complete dentures opposing mandibular 2-implant overdentures; a further nine participants had maxillary 3-implant overdentures opposing mandibular 2-implant overdentures. All participants recruited had been wearing their original prostheses for 3 years with a bilateral balance occlusal scheme. The participants' existing satisfaction levels, as a baseline, were determined using visual analogue scale questionnaires. They were followed by similar assessments of two further occlusal schemes using 2-month assessment periods. On completion of the study, the participants selected their preferred occlusal scheme and semiformal interviews were conducted to assess the rationale for their choices.
Results:
Baseline data showed all the participants had pre-existing high satisfaction levels. Thereafter, of those participants that received lingualized occlusion first, 55.6% reported that the physiologic occlusion was better than lingualized occlusion. For those participants who received the physiologic occlusion first, 85.7% reported that physiologic occlusion was better than lingualized occlusion. On completion of the study, 64.7% of the participants preferred the physiologic occlusion, 35.3% preferred the lingualized occlusion. However, when the two groups' satisfaction scores were modeled using the three main key indicator questions (general satisfaction, general ability to chew, or general function), there were no significant differences between them.
Conclusions:
Within the limitations of a small number of participants, the majority of them still indicated a preference for a physiologic occlusion for implant overdentures. Improved function was given as the main indicator for that preference. Having implant overdentures in one or both jaws is not a formative factor in patient's opinions on occlusal schemes.
