Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 9, 2025
Therapy Interventions for Upper Limb Amputees Undergoing Selective Nerve Transfers
Published on: October 29, 2021
Attachment-retained removable prostheses: Patient satisfaction and quality of life assessment
Amal A Swelem1, Mohamed H Abdelnabi2
1Professor, Oral and Maxillofacial Prosthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; Removable Prosthodontic Department, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Statement Of Problem:
Studies on the impact of incorporating attachments in removable prostheses on patient-based outcomes are scarce.
Purpose:
The purpose of this clinical study was to investigate oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) and patient satisfaction in partially edentulous participants before and after rehabilitation with mandibular attachment-retained removable prostheses as compared with conventional removable prostheses.
Material And Methods:
This crossover study included 74 participants (aged 36 to 57). Initially, 56 received conventional clasp-retained removable dental prostheses (RDPs), and 18 received conventional overdentures (ODs) based on their mandibular partially edentulous state. Two months later, of the 56 RDP participants, 24 had received extracoronal attachment-retained RDPs, 17 received telescope-retained RDPs, and 15 received bar-attachment retained RDPs. The 18 OD participants received ball attachment-retained ODs. Assessments included Oral Health Impact Profile-short version-14 for OHRQoL and a visual analog scale (VAS) for patient satisfaction. Assessments were done before treatment and 2 months after wearing each prosthesis with a 1-month washout period. Statistical analysis included the Friedman then the Wilcoxon signed rank test for Oral Health Impact Profile-short version-14 scores and repeated measures ANOVA then the Bonferroni or paired t test for VAS scores (α=.05).
Results:
There were no dropouts. Rehabilitation, irrespective of prosthesis type, significantly improved OHRQoL in all domains and significantly increased overall patient satisfaction (P<.05). When compared with the conventional prostheses, attachment-retained prostheses significantly improved functional limitation, psychological discomfort, and physical limitation domains in all groups (P<.05), as well as the physical pain domain in the OD group (P=.041). General satisfaction, stability, comfort, ability to speak, and ability to masticate significantly increased (P<.05) with attachment-retained prostheses. Conventional prostheses were significantly easier to clean (P<.05) in all groups, except for the telescope-attachment group.
Conclusions:
Both conventional and attachment-retained prostheses significantly increased patient satisfaction and improved OHRQoL in all domains as compared with before treatment. However, incorporation of attachments further improved functional limitation, psychological discomfort, and physical limitation domains in all groups, as well as the physical pain domain in the OD group. Participants were more satisfied with their attachment-retained prostheses in most aspects.
