Retrospective pilot study evaluates satisfaction with palateless implant-supported overdentures, suggesting high patient acceptance.
Palateless monolithic CAD/CAM implant-supported overdentures are increasingly used in clinical practice; however, limited clinical data are available regarding patient-reported outcomes associated with this prosthetic design. The purpose of this retrospective pilot study was to evaluate patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction with palateless monolithic CAD/CAM implant-supported overdentures. A questionnaire-based observational study was conducted involving 24 participants rehabilitated with 37 palateless monolithic CAD/CAM implant-supported overdentures retained by LOCATOR attachments. Data were collected through structured telephone interviews using a modified 20-item Visual Analog Scale (VAS) questionnaire, in which each item was scored on a 0–10 scale (total possible score range: 0–200), assessing patient satisfaction related to retention, stability, mastication, comfort, speech, esthetics, psychosocial well-being, and overall acceptance. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and subgroup analyses were performed based on arch configuration, sex, and prior prosthetic experience. The mean follow-up period was 3.1 ± 1.5 years. The overall mean VAS score was 182 ± 18.2, indicating high patient satisfaction. Participants rehabilitated with implant-supported overdentures in both arches reported significantly higher satisfaction than those with a single overdenture opposing natural dentition or fixed prostheses (P = 0.024). Male participants reported significantly higher satisfaction scores than female participants (P = 0.012). No significant difference in satisfaction was observed between participants with or without a history of conventional metal-reinforced overdentures (P > 0.05). Within the limitations of this retrospective pilot study, palateless monolithic CAD/CAM implant-supported overdentures were associated with high patient-reported satisfaction. These findings suggest that this prosthetic design represents a well-accepted treatment option from the patient perspective. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm these results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Almalki et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: