Mini vs. Standard Implants for Mandibular Overdentures
A mandibular implant-retained overdenture is considered a first-choice treatment for edentulism. However, some aspects limit the use of standard implants—for example, the width of edentulous ridges, chronic diseases, fear, or costs. This randomized trial compared mandibular overdentures retained by...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of dental research 2015-10, Vol.94 (10), p.1376-1384 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng ; jpn |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1384 |
---|---|
container_issue | 10 |
container_start_page | 1376 |
container_title | Journal of dental research |
container_volume | 94 |
creator | RF de Souza Ribeiro, AB MP Della Vecchia Costa, L Cunha, T R Reis, A C Albuquerque, RF |
description | A mandibular implant-retained overdenture is considered a first-choice treatment for edentulism. However, some aspects limit the use of standard implants—for example, the width of edentulous ridges, chronic diseases, fear, or costs. This randomized trial compared mandibular overdentures retained by 2 or 4 mini-implants with standard implants, considering oral health–related quality of life (OHRQoL), patient satisfaction, and complications such as lost implant. In sum, 120 edentulous men and women (mean age, 59.5 ± 8.5 y) randomly received 4 mini-implants, 2 mini-implants, or 2 standard implants. Participants provided data regarding OHRQoL and satisfaction until 12 mo. Clinical parameters, including implant survival rate, were also recorded. Both 2 and 4 mini-implants led to better OHRQoL, compared with 2 standard implants. Treatment with 4 mini-implants was more satisfying than 2 standard implants, with 2 mini-implants presenting intermediate results. Implant survival rate was 89%, 82%, and 99% for 4 mini-implants, 2 mini-implants, or 2 standard implants, respectively. Overdentures retained by 4 or 2 mini-implants can achieve OHRQoL and satisfaction at least comparable with that of 2 standard implants. However, the survival rate of mini implants is not as high as that of standard implants (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01411683). |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/0022034515601959 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2300626989</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2300626989</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1419-e6d0e90836c4b2ca02566954ef44ce19a979f5afbfb922508283d38cdbd88f063</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotjk1LAzEYhIMouFbvHgOeU998bt6jFD8KLT2o55LdJLBlzdZkt7_fLfY0MM8wM4Q8clhyXtfPAEKAVJprAxw1XpGKa6UYaOTXpDpjdua35K6UA8wZYWVFzLZLHT2VJf0cXfIue7r-OfYujYXGIdPtbHbN1LtMd6eQfUjjlEO5JzfR9SU8XHRBvt9ev1YfbLN7X69eNqzliiMLxkNAsNK0qhGtA6GNQa1CVKoNHB3WGLWLTWxQCA12_uSlbX3jrY1g5II8_fce8_A7hTLuD8OU0zy5FxLACIMW5R8RWkbl</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2300626989</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Mini vs. Standard Implants for Mandibular Overdentures</title><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>RF de Souza ; Ribeiro, AB ; MP Della Vecchia ; Costa, L ; Cunha, T R ; Reis, A C ; Albuquerque, RF</creator><creatorcontrib>RF de Souza ; Ribeiro, AB ; MP Della Vecchia ; Costa, L ; Cunha, T R ; Reis, A C ; Albuquerque, RF</creatorcontrib><description>A mandibular implant-retained overdenture is considered a first-choice treatment for edentulism. However, some aspects limit the use of standard implants—for example, the width of edentulous ridges, chronic diseases, fear, or costs. This randomized trial compared mandibular overdentures retained by 2 or 4 mini-implants with standard implants, considering oral health–related quality of life (OHRQoL), patient satisfaction, and complications such as lost implant. In sum, 120 edentulous men and women (mean age, 59.5 ± 8.5 y) randomly received 4 mini-implants, 2 mini-implants, or 2 standard implants. Participants provided data regarding OHRQoL and satisfaction until 12 mo. Clinical parameters, including implant survival rate, were also recorded. Both 2 and 4 mini-implants led to better OHRQoL, compared with 2 standard implants. Treatment with 4 mini-implants was more satisfying than 2 standard implants, with 2 mini-implants presenting intermediate results. Implant survival rate was 89%, 82%, and 99% for 4 mini-implants, 2 mini-implants, or 2 standard implants, respectively. Overdentures retained by 4 or 2 mini-implants can achieve OHRQoL and satisfaction at least comparable with that of 2 standard implants. However, the survival rate of mini implants is not as high as that of standard implants (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01411683).</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-0345</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1544-0591</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0022034515601959</identifier><language>eng ; jpn</language><publisher>Alexandria: SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</publisher><subject>Chronic illnesses ; Costs ; Dentures ; Mandible ; Oral hygiene ; Patient satisfaction ; Prostheses ; Quality of life ; Researchers ; Surgery ; Survival ; Transplants & implants</subject><ispartof>Journal of dental research, 2015-10, Vol.94 (10), p.1376-1384</ispartof><rights>International & American Associations for Dental Research 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1419-e6d0e90836c4b2ca02566954ef44ce19a979f5afbfb922508283d38cdbd88f063</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>RF de Souza</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ribeiro, AB</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MP Della Vecchia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Costa, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cunha, T R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reis, A C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Albuquerque, RF</creatorcontrib><title>Mini vs. Standard Implants for Mandibular Overdentures</title><title>Journal of dental research</title><description>A mandibular implant-retained overdenture is considered a first-choice treatment for edentulism. However, some aspects limit the use of standard implants—for example, the width of edentulous ridges, chronic diseases, fear, or costs. This randomized trial compared mandibular overdentures retained by 2 or 4 mini-implants with standard implants, considering oral health–related quality of life (OHRQoL), patient satisfaction, and complications such as lost implant. In sum, 120 edentulous men and women (mean age, 59.5 ± 8.5 y) randomly received 4 mini-implants, 2 mini-implants, or 2 standard implants. Participants provided data regarding OHRQoL and satisfaction until 12 mo. Clinical parameters, including implant survival rate, were also recorded. Both 2 and 4 mini-implants led to better OHRQoL, compared with 2 standard implants. Treatment with 4 mini-implants was more satisfying than 2 standard implants, with 2 mini-implants presenting intermediate results. Implant survival rate was 89%, 82%, and 99% for 4 mini-implants, 2 mini-implants, or 2 standard implants, respectively. Overdentures retained by 4 or 2 mini-implants can achieve OHRQoL and satisfaction at least comparable with that of 2 standard implants. However, the survival rate of mini implants is not as high as that of standard implants (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01411683).</description><subject>Chronic illnesses</subject><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Dentures</subject><subject>Mandible</subject><subject>Oral hygiene</subject><subject>Patient satisfaction</subject><subject>Prostheses</subject><subject>Quality of life</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Survival</subject><subject>Transplants & implants</subject><issn>0022-0345</issn><issn>1544-0591</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNotjk1LAzEYhIMouFbvHgOeU998bt6jFD8KLT2o55LdJLBlzdZkt7_fLfY0MM8wM4Q8clhyXtfPAEKAVJprAxw1XpGKa6UYaOTXpDpjdua35K6UA8wZYWVFzLZLHT2VJf0cXfIue7r-OfYujYXGIdPtbHbN1LtMd6eQfUjjlEO5JzfR9SU8XHRBvt9ev1YfbLN7X69eNqzliiMLxkNAsNK0qhGtA6GNQa1CVKoNHB3WGLWLTWxQCA12_uSlbX3jrY1g5II8_fce8_A7hTLuD8OU0zy5FxLACIMW5R8RWkbl</recordid><startdate>20151001</startdate><enddate>20151001</enddate><creator>RF de Souza</creator><creator>Ribeiro, AB</creator><creator>MP Della Vecchia</creator><creator>Costa, L</creator><creator>Cunha, T R</creator><creator>Reis, A C</creator><creator>Albuquerque, RF</creator><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>U9A</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20151001</creationdate><title>Mini vs. Standard Implants for Mandibular Overdentures</title><author>RF de Souza ; Ribeiro, AB ; MP Della Vecchia ; Costa, L ; Cunha, T R ; Reis, A C ; Albuquerque, RF</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1419-e6d0e90836c4b2ca02566954ef44ce19a979f5afbfb922508283d38cdbd88f063</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng ; jpn</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Chronic illnesses</topic><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Dentures</topic><topic>Mandible</topic><topic>Oral hygiene</topic><topic>Patient satisfaction</topic><topic>Prostheses</topic><topic>Quality of life</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Survival</topic><topic>Transplants & implants</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>RF de Souza</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ribeiro, AB</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MP Della Vecchia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Costa, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cunha, T R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reis, A C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Albuquerque, RF</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><jtitle>Journal of dental research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>RF de Souza</au><au>Ribeiro, AB</au><au>MP Della Vecchia</au><au>Costa, L</au><au>Cunha, T R</au><au>Reis, A C</au><au>Albuquerque, RF</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Mini vs. Standard Implants for Mandibular Overdentures</atitle><jtitle>Journal of dental research</jtitle><date>2015-10-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>94</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>1376</spage><epage>1384</epage><pages>1376-1384</pages><issn>0022-0345</issn><eissn>1544-0591</eissn><abstract>A mandibular implant-retained overdenture is considered a first-choice treatment for edentulism. However, some aspects limit the use of standard implants—for example, the width of edentulous ridges, chronic diseases, fear, or costs. This randomized trial compared mandibular overdentures retained by 2 or 4 mini-implants with standard implants, considering oral health–related quality of life (OHRQoL), patient satisfaction, and complications such as lost implant. In sum, 120 edentulous men and women (mean age, 59.5 ± 8.5 y) randomly received 4 mini-implants, 2 mini-implants, or 2 standard implants. Participants provided data regarding OHRQoL and satisfaction until 12 mo. Clinical parameters, including implant survival rate, were also recorded. Both 2 and 4 mini-implants led to better OHRQoL, compared with 2 standard implants. Treatment with 4 mini-implants was more satisfying than 2 standard implants, with 2 mini-implants presenting intermediate results. Implant survival rate was 89%, 82%, and 99% for 4 mini-implants, 2 mini-implants, or 2 standard implants, respectively. Overdentures retained by 4 or 2 mini-implants can achieve OHRQoL and satisfaction at least comparable with that of 2 standard implants. However, the survival rate of mini implants is not as high as that of standard implants (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01411683).</abstract><cop>Alexandria</cop><pub>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</pub><doi>10.1177/0022034515601959</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-0345 |
ispartof | Journal of dental research, 2015-10, Vol.94 (10), p.1376-1384 |
issn | 0022-0345 1544-0591 |
language | eng ; jpn |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2300626989 |
source | SAGE Complete A-Z List; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Chronic illnesses Costs Dentures Mandible Oral hygiene Patient satisfaction Prostheses Quality of life Researchers Surgery Survival Transplants & implants |
title | Mini vs. Standard Implants for Mandibular Overdentures |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T19%3A18%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Mini%20vs.%20Standard%20Implants%20for%20Mandibular%20Overdentures&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20dental%20research&rft.au=RF%20de%20Souza&rft.date=2015-10-01&rft.volume=94&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1376&rft.epage=1384&rft.pages=1376-1384&rft.issn=0022-0345&rft.eissn=1544-0591&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0022034515601959&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2300626989%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2300626989&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |