Key Points
-
Investigates the attitudes of GDPs to the maintenance of Locator retained implant overdentures in primary care.
-
Reports that most GDPs are not familiar with the Locator attachment system and are reluctant to maintain Locator retained implant overdentures.
-
Highlights barriers to the shared care of patients with Locator retained implant overdentures between hospital practitioners and GDPs.
Abstract
Introduction Locator retained implant overdentures are associated with a high incidence of prosthodontic complications. This study investigated whether general dental practitioners (GDPs) were willing to maintain these prostheses in primary dental care.
Method A questionnaire was distributed to all GDPs referring patients for an implant assessment to the Charles Clifford Dental Hospital, Sheffield between 1 January 2012 and 30 June 2012.
Results Ninety-four out of one hundred and forty-six questionnaires were returned (response rate: 64%). Thirteen GDPs (14%) were able to identify the Locator attachment system from clinical photographs. Eighty-two GDPs (87%) would adjust the fit surface of a Locator retained implant overdenture. Twenty-three GDPs (25%) would replace a retentive insert, 18 GDPs (19%) would tighten a loose abutment, 68 GDPs (72%) would debride abutments and 25 GDPs (27%) would remake a Locator-retained implant overdenture. Forty-seven GDPs (50%) felt that the maintenance of these prostheses was not their responsibility. The main barriers identified to maintenance by GDPs were a lack of training, knowledge and equipment. Seventy GDPs (74%) would like further training in this area.
Conclusions GDPs are not familiar with the Locator attachment system and are reluctant to maintain implant retained overdentures. GDPs would like further training in this area.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Donatsky O . Osseointegrated dental implants with ball attachments supporting overdentures in patients with mandibular alveolar ridge atrophy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993; 8: 162–166.
McGill Consensus Statement on Overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003; 8: 601–602.
Thomason J M, Feine J, Exley C 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: 185–186.
The NHS Information Centre, Dental and Eye Care Team. Adult Dental Health Survey 2009 – First Release. The NHS Information Centre for health and social care, 2010.
Andreiotelli M, Strub J R . Prosthodontic complications with implant overdentures: a systematic literature review. Int J Prosthodont 2010; 23: 195–203.
Dudic A, Merickse-Stern R. Retention mechanisms and prosthetic complications of implant supported mandibular overdentures: long term results. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2002; 4: 212–219.
Meijer H J A, Raghoebar G M, Batenburg R H K, Vissink A . Mandibular overdentures supported by two Branemark, IMZ or ITI implants: a ten year prospective randomised study. J Clin Periodontol 2009; 36: 799–806.
Chaffee N, Felton D A, Cooper L F, Palmqvist U, Smith R . Prosthetic complications in an implant retained mandibular overdenture population: initial analysis of a prospective study. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87: 40–44.
Kleis W K, Kammerer P W, Hartmann S, Al-Nawas B, Wagner W . A comparison of three different attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: one year report. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010; 12: 209–218.
Mackie A, Lyons K, Thomson W M, Payne A G T . Mandibular two-implant overdentures: Three year prosthodontic maintenance using the locator attachment system. Int J Prosthodont 2011; 24: 328–331.
Vere J, Hall D, Patel R, Wragg P F W . Prosthodontic maintenance of implant retained overdentures using the locator attachment system. Int J Prosthodont 2012; 25: 392–394.
Cook J V, Dickinson H O, Eccles M P . Response rates in postal surveys of healthcare professionals between 1996 and 2005: An observational study. BMC Health Serv Res 2009; 9: 160.
Heasman P, Esmail Z, Barclay C . Peri-implant diseases. Dental Update 2010; 37: 511–516.
Alani A, Bishop K, Djemal S, Renton T . Guidelines for Selecting Appropriate Patients to Receive Treatment with Dental Implants: Priorities for the NHS. Royal College of Surgeons of England Faculty of Dental Surgery, 2012.
Skipper M . Managed clinical networks. Br Dent J 2010; 209: 241–242.
Brunton P . Developing clinical care pathways. Ann R Coll Surg Eng (Suppl) 2012; 94: 315.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Refereed Paper
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vere, J., Eliyas, S. & Wragg, P. Attitudes of general dental practitioners to the maintenance of Locator retained implant overdentures. Br Dent J 216, E5 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.50
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.50
This article is cited by
-
Implant-supported overdentures: part 2
British Dental Journal (2021)
-
The use of dental implants, cast bars and sleeve overdentures in oral cancer patients
British Dental Journal (2018)
-
Are UK graduates equipped with the skill set required to meet the demands of the UK's edentulous population?
British Dental Journal (2018)
-
Survey of consultants in restorative dentistry in the UK regarding ongoing care of patients provided with dental implants
British Dental Journal (2017)
