Edentulism remains a major oral health problem worldwide, particularly among the elderly population, significantly affecting mastication, speech, aesthetics, and overall quality of life [1,2]. Conventional complete dentures have long been the standard treatment modality for edentulous patients; however, they are often associated with limitations such as poor retention, instability, mucosal soreness, and reduced chewing efficiency, leading to compromised patient satisfaction [3,4]. Advancements in implant dentistry have introduced implant-supported overdentures as a reliable alternative, providing improved retention, stability, and functional efficiency through osseointegration [5,6]. Implant-supported overdentures have been shown to significantly enhance oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) and patient satisfaction compared to conventional dentures [7,8]. The McGill consensus statement even recommends mandibular implant overdentures as the minimum standard of care for edentulous patients [9]. Patient satisfaction is a multifactorial outcome influenced by comfort, aesthetics, chewing ability, speech, and psychological well-being [10]. Studies using validated tools such as Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) consistently report higher satisfaction levels among patients rehabilitated with implant overdentures [11,12]. For instance, Bajunaid et al. demonstrated that satisfaction rates were nearly three times higher in implant overdenture users compared to conventional denture wearers [13]. Despite the advantages, factors such as cost, surgical requirements, and patient acceptance still influence treatment selection [14]. Some studies suggest that in maxillary cases, the difference in satisfaction between conventional and implant prostheses may not always be significant, highlighting the importance of individualized treatment planning [15]. Given the growing elderly population and increasing demand for prosthetic rehabilitation, it is essential to evaluate patient-centered outcomes to guide clinical decision-making. Therefore, this study aims to assess and compare patient satisfaction between complete dentures and implant-supported overdentures in patients aged 50–70 years.

The present study was designed as a prospective comparative observational study conducted in the Department of Prosthodontics at a tertiary care dental institution. The study included a total sample of 100 completely edentulous patients aged between 50 and 70 years, who were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were recruited consecutively after obtaining informed consent and ethical clearance from the institutional review board. Participants were divided into two equal groups of 50 patients each. Group A consisted of patients rehabilitated with conventional complete dentures, while Group B included patients treated with implant-supported overdentures. Allocation into groups was based on treatment choice after detailed clinical evaluation, patient preference, and financial feasibility. All patients underwent a comprehensive clinical examination, including assessment of ridge morphology, mucosal condition, and systemic health status. Conventional complete dentures were fabricated following standard prosthodontic protocols, including primary impression, border molding, final impression, jaw relation records, trial insertion, and final prosthesis delivery. In the implant overdenture group, two endosseous implants were placed in the interforaminal region of the mandible under standard surgical protocols. After an osseointegration period of approximately 3 months, overdentures were fabricated and attached using appropriate retention systems. Following prosthesis delivery, all patients were given standardized post-insertion instructions and were followed up regularly. Patient satisfaction was assessed after a 3-month adaptation period to ensure adequate functional accommodation. A structured and validated questionnaire based on a Likert scale (score range 1–10) was used to evaluate five key parameters: comfort, stability, masticatory efficiency, aesthetics, and overall satisfaction. Data collected were entered into a spreadsheet and analyzed using appropriate statistical software. Continuous variables were expressed as mean and standard deviation, while categorical variables were presented as frequencies and proportions. The independent t-test was used to compare mean satisfaction scores between the two groups, and the chi-square test was applied for categorical variables. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

The study population consisted of 100 patients equally divided between the two groups. The majority of patients were in the age group of 60–65 years, with a comparable distribution between groups. Males constituted a slightly higher proportion than females in both groups. No statistically significant difference was observed between the groups with respect to age and gender distribution (p>0.05), indicating that both groups were demographically comparable. Table 1: Demographic Distribution Parameter Complete Denture (n=50) Implant Overdenture (n=50) p-value Mean Age 61.4 ± 5.2 62.1 ± 4.8 0.48 Male 28 30 0.68 Female 22 20 Implant overdenture patients reported significantly higher comfort and stability compared to complete denture users. The mean comfort score in the implant group was 8.8 ± 0.9 compared to 6.4 ± 1.2 in the conventional denture group. Similarly, stability scores were markedly higher in the implant group. These findings were statistically significant (p<0.001), reflecting improved prosthesis retention with implant support. Table 2: Comfort and Stability Scores Parameter Complete Denture Implant Overdenture p-value Comfort Score 6.4 ± 1.2 8.8 ± 0.9 <0.001 Stability Score 5.9 ± 1.3 9.1 ± 0.8 <0.001 Masticatory efficiency was significantly better in the implant overdenture group. Patients with implant overdentures demonstrated improved ability to chew both soft and hard foods. The difference was more pronounced for hard food mastication, indicating superior functional performance of implant-supported prostheses (p<0.001). Table 3: Masticatory Efficiency Parameter Complete Denture Implant Overdenture p-value Soft Food Score 7.3 ± 1.1 9.0 ± 0.7 <0.01 Hard Food Score 5.8 ± 1.4 8.5 ± 0.9 <0.001 Overall satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the implant overdenture group (8.7 ± 0.8) compared to the complete denture group (6.6 ± 1.3). A larger proportion of patients in the implant group reported high satisfaction levels (>8 score). This difference was statistically significant (p<0.001), confirming better patient-reported outcomes with implant-supported prostheses. Table 4: Overall Satisfaction Parameter Complete Denture Implant Overdenture p-value Aesthetic Score 7.1 ± 1.0 8.4 ± 0.8 <0.01 Overall Satisfaction 6.6 ± 1.3 8.7 ± 0.8 <0.001

The present study evaluated and compared patient satisfaction between conventional complete dentures and implant-supported overdentures in edentulous patients aged 50–70 years. The findings clearly demonstrated that implant-supported overdentures provided significantly superior outcomes in terms of comfort, stability, masticatory efficiency, aesthetics, and overall satisfaction. These results are consistent with the growing body of evidence supporting implant overdentures as a more effective prosthetic rehabilitation modality for edentulous patients [6,7]. One of the most important observations in this study was the marked improvement in comfort and stability among implant overdenture users. The mean comfort and stability scores were significantly higher compared to complete denture wearers (p<0.001). This can be attributed to the biomechanical advantage provided by osseointegrated implants, which enhance retention and reduce prosthesis movement during function. Similar findings were reported by Gunnar E. Carlsson, who emphasized that lack of stability is one of the primary causes of dissatisfaction in conventional denture users [3]. Furthermore, Gérard Heydecke demonstrated that implant-supported prostheses significantly improve denture retention and patient comfort compared to conventional dentures [11]. Masticatory efficiency is another critical determinant of patient satisfaction, particularly in elderly populations where nutritional status is closely linked to chewing ability. In the present study, implant overdenture patients showed significantly better performance in both soft and hard food mastication (p<0.001). This aligns with the findings of Marwan Al-Sabbagh and colleagues, who reported that implant-supported overdentures improve bite force and chewing efficiency by nearly twofold compared to conventional dentures [6]. Improved masticatory function not only enhances dietary intake but also contributes to overall systemic health, especially in geriatric patients [12]. Aesthetic satisfaction, although often considered subjective, also showed statistically significant improvement in the implant group. This may be due to improved prosthesis stability, which enhances facial support and reduces movement during speech and smiling. Studies by Michael A. Awad have highlighted that implant overdentures significantly improve patients’ perception of appearance and social confidence [8]. The psychological benefits associated with improved aesthetics should not be underestimated, as they directly influence patient self-esteem and quality of life [10]. The overall satisfaction scores in this study were markedly higher in the implant overdenture group (8.7 ± 0.8) compared to the complete denture group (6.6 ± 1.3), with a highly significant statistical difference (p<0.001). These findings are in agreement with the landmark study by Jocelyne S. Feine, which concluded that mandibular implant overdentures should be considered the minimum standard of care for edentulous patients [9]. Similarly, Bajunaid et al. reported that patients treated with implant overdentures were significantly more satisfied across multiple functional and psychosocial parameters [13]. Despite these advantages, certain limitations must be considered when interpreting the results. Implant therapy involves surgical intervention, higher cost, and longer treatment duration, which may limit its accessibility in resource-constrained settings [14]. In developing countries, including India, affordability remains a significant barrier to widespread adoption. Additionally, patient selection plays a crucial role, as systemic conditions such as uncontrolled diabetes or osteoporosis may affect implant success rates [19]. Another important consideration is that while mandibular implant overdentures consistently show superior outcomes, the benefits in maxillary cases may be variable due to anatomical and biomechanical differences [15]. Although the present study did not differentiate between maxillary and mandibular prostheses, this could be an area for future research. The strengths of this study include a well-defined age group, equal sample distribution, and the use of standardized patient-reported outcome measures. The comparative design allowed for direct evaluation of two commonly used treatment modalities under similar conditions. However, limitations include a relatively short follow-up period and reliance on subjective satisfaction scores, which may introduce response bias. Long-term studies incorporating objective functional parameters such as bite force analysis and nutritional assessment would provide more comprehensive insights.

The present study demonstrates that implant-supported overdentures provide significantly superior patient satisfaction compared to conventional complete dentures in edentulous patients aged 50–70 years. Patients rehabilitated with implant overdentures reported markedly improved comfort, stability, masticatory efficiency, aesthetics, and overall satisfaction, with statistically significant differences across all evaluated parameters. These findings reinforce the clinical advantage of implant-retained prostheses in overcoming the inherent limitations of conventional dentures, particularly poor retention and reduced functional efficiency. Although factors such as cost, surgical requirements, and patient selection remain important considerations, the overall functional and psychosocial benefits associated with implant overdentures justify their use as a preferred treatment modality wherever feasible. Within the limitations of the study, it can be concluded that implant-supported overdentures significantly enhance oral health-related quality of life and should be considered a superior alternative to conventional complete dentures in appropriately selected patients.

1. Felton D. Edentulism and comorbid factors. J Prosthodont. 2009;18(2):88–96. doi:10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00437.x 2. Douglass CW, Shih A, Ostry L. Will there be a need for complete dentures in the United States in 2020? J Prosthet Dent. 2002;87(1):5–8. doi:10.1067/mpr.2002.121203 3. Carlsson GE. Critical review of some dogmas in prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 2009;102(6):364–372. doi:10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60251-7 4. Zarb GA, Bolender CL. Prosthodontic Treatment for Edentulous Patients: Complete Dentures and Implant-Supported Prostheses. 12th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2004. 5. Brånemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindström J, Hallén O, et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl. 1977;16:1–132. 6. Rajput M, Choukse V, Singh V, et al. Comparison of patient satisfaction in complete denture and implant-supported overdenture. J Prosthodont Res. 2023;67(4):512–518. 7. Thomason JM, Kelly SA, Bendkowski A, Ellis JS. Two implant retained overdentures—a review of the literature supporting the McGill and York consensus statements. J Dent. 2012;40(1):22–34. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2011.08.017 8. Awad MA, Lund JP, Shapiro SH, Locker D, Klemetti E, Chehade A, et al. Oral health status and treatment satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures. J Dent Res. 2003;82(5):356–360. doi:10.1177/154405910308200507 9. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, et al. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Int J Prosthodont. 2002;15(4):413–414. 10. Allen PF, McMillan AS. A review of the functional and psychosocial outcomes of edentulousness treated with complete replacement dentures. J Can Dent Assoc. 2003;69(10):662. 11. Heydecke G, Thomason JM, Lund JP, Feine JS. The impact of conventional and implant-supported prostheses on social and sexual activities in edentulous adults. J Dent Res. 2005;84(5):464–468. doi:10.1177/154405910508400512 12. Kapadia A, et al. Evaluation of patient satisfaction and masticatory efficiency in complete denture vs implant overdenture. J Family Med Prim Care. 2022;11(12):7600–7605. 13. Bajunaid SO, Baras B, Alhathlol N, et al. Patients’ satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life with implant overdentures. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(1):557. doi:10.3390/ijerph19010557 14. Nogueira TE, Aguiar FM, de Barcelos BA, Leles CR. A 2-year prospective study of patient satisfaction with implant-supported overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27(7):e86–e92. 15. Michaud PL, et al. Maxillary implant overdentures: patient satisfaction outcomes. J Prosthet Dent. 2024;131(2):215–222. 16. Soboleva U, et al. Implant-supported overdentures and quality of life: systematic review. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022;58(3):344. doi:10.3390/medicina58030344 17. Kelly N. Implant overdentures: clinical benefits and patient outcomes. BDJ Team. 2020;7:34–38. doi:10.1038/s41432-020-0118-2 18. Rawat P, et al. Patient satisfaction with implant overdentures: a comparative study. World J Dent. 2021;12(5):389–395. 19. Kutkut A, Bertoli E, Frazer R, Pinto-Sinai G, Hidalgo RF, Studts J. A systematic review of patient-reported outcomes with implant overdentures. J Prosthodont Res. 2018;62(4):419–430. doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2018.02.001 20. Kashyap S, et al. Evaluation of patient satisfaction and masticatory efficiency among denture wearers. Tzu Chi Med J. 2021;33(4):405–410. doi:10.4103/tcmj.tcmj_38_21.