Literature DB >> 9326900

A within-subject comparison of mandibular long-bar and hybrid implant-supported prostheses: psychometric evaluation and patient preference.

L Tang1, J P Lund, R Taché, C M Clokie, J S Feine.   

Abstract

Although it has been shown that patients are more satisfied with prostheses supported by implants than with conventional dentures, there have been few direct comparisons of the various designs of implant-supported prostheses. This within-subject crossover clinical trial was designed to compare two forms of removable prostheses which are frequently prescribed for the edentulous mandible: a long-bar overdenture supported by 4 implants and a two-implant hybrid overdenture. Sixteen completely edentulous subjects were given a new maxillary conventional denture: Ten of them received the mandibular long-bar prosthesis first and six the hybrid. After a two-month adaptation period, psychometric measures of various aspects of the prostheses and physiological tests of masticatory efficiency were carried out over three weeks. The mandibular prostheses were then changed and the procedures repeated. At the end of the study, subjects were asked to choose the mandibular prosthesis that they wished to keep, and final psychometric measures were taken. In this paper, the results of the psychometric assessment and patient preference are presented. Subjects assessed factors such as general satisfaction, quality of life, stability, retention, comfort, esthetics, ease of cleaning, speaking, and chewing, and how well-chewed foods were before being swallowed. Most of the factors except ease of cleaning and speaking were rated significantly better with long-bar overdentures than with hybrid ones. These results are consistent with the fact that all subjects chose long-bar overdentures, reporting stability, ease of chewing, and comfort as the most important factors influencing their choice. These results suggest that, although subjects assign high ratings for most factors to hybrid overdentures, they find long-bar overdentures to be significantly more stable, comfortable, and easier for chewing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9326900     DOI: 10.1177/00220345970760100901

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dent Res        ISSN: 0022-0345            Impact factor:   6.116


  5 in total

1.  Are UK graduates equipped with the skill set required to meet the demands of the UK's edentulous population?

Authors:  H Mather; M Thomason; J Ellis
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2018-07-06       Impact factor: 1.626

2.  IMPROVDENT: improving dentures for patient benefit. A crossover randomised clinical trial comparing impression materials for complete dentures.

Authors:  Janine C Gray; Nuria Navarro-Coy; Sue H Pavitt; Claire Hulme; Mary Godfrey; Helen L Craddock; Paul A Brunton; Sarah Brown; Sean Dillon; Gillian Dukanovic; Catherine Fernandez; Jonathan Wright; Howard Collier; Shirley Swithenbank; Carol Lee; T Paul Hyde
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2012-08-31       Impact factor: 2.757

Review 3.  Implant Supported Fixed Restorations versus Implant Supported Removable Overdentures: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Khaled Selim; Sherif Ali; Ahmed Reda
Journal:  Open Access Maced J Med Sci       Date:  2016-10-14

4.  Fit Accuracy of Removable Partial Denture Frameworks Fabricated with CAD/CAM, Rapid Prototyping, and Conventional Techniques: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Naseer Ahmed; Maria Shakoor Abbasi; Sara Haider; Nimra Ahmed; Syed Rashid Habib; Sara Altamash; Muhammad Sohail Zafar; Mohammad Khursheed Alam
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2021-09-06       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  Changes in oral health-related quality of life after three different strategies of implant therapy: a clinical trial.

Authors:  Javier Montero; Javier Dolz; Francisco-Javier Silvestre; Javier Flores; Abraham Dib; Cristina Gómez-Polo
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 2.634

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.