A within‐subject clinical trial on the conversion of mandibular two‐implant to three‐implant overdenture: Patient‐centered outcomes and willingness to pay
Objectives To examine the impact of adding a third midline implant with stud attachment to a mandibular two‐implant overdenture on patient‐oriented outcomes. Methods In this pre–post design clinical trial, following the standard procedures, mandibular two‐implant overdentures of 17 edentulous indivi...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical oral implants research 2019-03, Vol.30 (3), p.218-228 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 228 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 218 |
| container_title | Clinical oral implants research |
| container_volume | 30 |
| creator | Emami, Elham Alesawy, Aminah de Grandmont, Pierre Cerutti‐Kopplin, Daiane Kodama, Naoki Menassa, Mélanie Rompré, Pierre Durand, Robert |
| description | Objectives
To examine the impact of adding a third midline implant with stud attachment to a mandibular two‐implant overdenture on patient‐oriented outcomes.
Methods
In this pre–post design clinical trial, following the standard procedures, mandibular two‐implant overdentures of 17 edentulous individuals (61.9 ± 6.6 years) were converted to three‐implant overdentures by adding a stud attachment to an unloaded midline implant. Patient‐oriented outcomes included patient expectations and satisfaction with implant overdenture as well as willingness to pay the cost of conversion. Data were collected at baseline and at the 6‐week follow‐up using visual analog and binary scales as well as open‐ended questions. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, Spearman's correlation, Fisher exact test, Mann–Whitney U test, and the exact sign test.
Results
After connecting the third midline implant to the mandibular two‐implant overdenture, there was a statistically significant decrease in the anteroposterior movement (p = 0.005) as evaluated by clinicians. Moreover, study participants reported an increase in perceived stability of the overdenture (95% CI; 0.68–1.00, p = 0.002) and in their ability to speak (95% CI; 0.63–1.00, p = 0.008). The addition of a third implant met the expectations of 94% of patients in regard to lower denture stability, 100% for retention, and 82.4% for comfort. The mandibular three‐implant overdenture increased patient general satisfaction over a short period of time, but this improvement was not statistically significant. About 80% of patients would recommend this type of prosthesis to their peers but only 47% of them would agree to pay a large increase in the cost of treatment compared to a two‐implant overdenture.
Conclusions
The addition of a midline third implant to an existing mandibular two‐implant overdenture resulted in several improved patient‐reported outcomes. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/clr.13408 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2179425860</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2179425860</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4548-8eac98ed8cf8677c34593f3a3e10134d06fc2906a9640415b50fd0c1ee4d20943</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUtuFDEQhi1ERIbAggsgS2xg0Um52-6x2UUjHpFGAiFYtzzuauJRtz3Y7kSz4wicgaNxklSYBCEkvHD58dXvcv2MPRNwKmicuTGdikaCfsAWogWoQIF4yBZgQFVL0Ypj9jjnLQC0RptH7LiBVgthmgX7ec6vfbn04df3H3nebNEV7kYfvLMjL8nTHAMvl8hdDFeYsqdtHPhkQ-8382gTL9eRkv20G20ovESiE-JfR5HyegxlTviaf7TF05quHQVM2PM4FxcnzJw0qZqRnv8aMOdbrZ3dP2FHgx0zPr2LJ-zL2zefV--r9Yd3F6vzdeWkkrrSaJ3R2Gs36Ha5dI1Uphka26AAak4P7eBqA601rQQp1EbB0IMTiLKvwcjmhL086O5S_DZjLt3ks8OR_oBxzl0tlkbWSrdA6It_0G2cU6DqiDJQq1oZTdSrA-VSzDnh0O2Sn2zadwK6W-M6Mq77bRyxz-8U582E_R_y3ikCzg4ANQj3_1fqVutPB8kb0QWoxg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2190252598</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A within‐subject clinical trial on the conversion of mandibular two‐implant to three‐implant overdenture: Patient‐centered outcomes and willingness to pay</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Emami, Elham ; Alesawy, Aminah ; de Grandmont, Pierre ; Cerutti‐Kopplin, Daiane ; Kodama, Naoki ; Menassa, Mélanie ; Rompré, Pierre ; Durand, Robert</creator><creatorcontrib>Emami, Elham ; Alesawy, Aminah ; de Grandmont, Pierre ; Cerutti‐Kopplin, Daiane ; Kodama, Naoki ; Menassa, Mélanie ; Rompré, Pierre ; Durand, Robert</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
To examine the impact of adding a third midline implant with stud attachment to a mandibular two‐implant overdenture on patient‐oriented outcomes.
Methods
In this pre–post design clinical trial, following the standard procedures, mandibular two‐implant overdentures of 17 edentulous individuals (61.9 ± 6.6 years) were converted to three‐implant overdentures by adding a stud attachment to an unloaded midline implant. Patient‐oriented outcomes included patient expectations and satisfaction with implant overdenture as well as willingness to pay the cost of conversion. Data were collected at baseline and at the 6‐week follow‐up using visual analog and binary scales as well as open‐ended questions. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, Spearman's correlation, Fisher exact test, Mann–Whitney U test, and the exact sign test.
Results
After connecting the third midline implant to the mandibular two‐implant overdenture, there was a statistically significant decrease in the anteroposterior movement (p = 0.005) as evaluated by clinicians. Moreover, study participants reported an increase in perceived stability of the overdenture (95% CI; 0.68–1.00, p = 0.002) and in their ability to speak (95% CI; 0.63–1.00, p = 0.008). The addition of a third implant met the expectations of 94% of patients in regard to lower denture stability, 100% for retention, and 82.4% for comfort. The mandibular three‐implant overdenture increased patient general satisfaction over a short period of time, but this improvement was not statistically significant. About 80% of patients would recommend this type of prosthesis to their peers but only 47% of them would agree to pay a large increase in the cost of treatment compared to a two‐implant overdenture.
Conclusions
The addition of a midline third implant to an existing mandibular two‐implant overdenture resulted in several improved patient‐reported outcomes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0905-7161</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-0501</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/clr.13408</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30681193</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Denmark: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>clinical trial ; Clinical trials ; Conversion ; Correlation analysis ; Dental Implants ; Dental materials ; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported ; Denture Retention ; Denture, Complete, Lower ; Denture, Overlay ; Dentures ; Humans ; Mandible ; mandibular prosthesis ; overdentures ; Patient Satisfaction ; Patient-Centered Care ; Patients ; Prostheses ; Stability ; Statistical analysis ; Statistical significance ; Statistical tests ; Treatment Outcome ; Willingness to pay</subject><ispartof>Clinical oral implants research, 2019-03, Vol.30 (3), p.218-228</ispartof><rights>2019 The Authors Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2019 The Authors Clinical Oral Implants Research Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4548-8eac98ed8cf8677c34593f3a3e10134d06fc2906a9640415b50fd0c1ee4d20943</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4548-8eac98ed8cf8677c34593f3a3e10134d06fc2906a9640415b50fd0c1ee4d20943</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6526-606X ; 0000-0002-9958-1567 ; 0000-0002-7730-4139 ; 0000-0001-9969-8274</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fclr.13408$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fclr.13408$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,1412,27905,27906,45555,45556</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30681193$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Emami, Elham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alesawy, Aminah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Grandmont, Pierre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cerutti‐Kopplin, Daiane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kodama, Naoki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Menassa, Mélanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rompré, Pierre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Durand, Robert</creatorcontrib><title>A within‐subject clinical trial on the conversion of mandibular two‐implant to three‐implant overdenture: Patient‐centered outcomes and willingness to pay</title><title>Clinical oral implants research</title><addtitle>Clin Oral Implants Res</addtitle><description>Objectives
To examine the impact of adding a third midline implant with stud attachment to a mandibular two‐implant overdenture on patient‐oriented outcomes.
Methods
In this pre–post design clinical trial, following the standard procedures, mandibular two‐implant overdentures of 17 edentulous individuals (61.9 ± 6.6 years) were converted to three‐implant overdentures by adding a stud attachment to an unloaded midline implant. Patient‐oriented outcomes included patient expectations and satisfaction with implant overdenture as well as willingness to pay the cost of conversion. Data were collected at baseline and at the 6‐week follow‐up using visual analog and binary scales as well as open‐ended questions. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, Spearman's correlation, Fisher exact test, Mann–Whitney U test, and the exact sign test.
Results
After connecting the third midline implant to the mandibular two‐implant overdenture, there was a statistically significant decrease in the anteroposterior movement (p = 0.005) as evaluated by clinicians. Moreover, study participants reported an increase in perceived stability of the overdenture (95% CI; 0.68–1.00, p = 0.002) and in their ability to speak (95% CI; 0.63–1.00, p = 0.008). The addition of a third implant met the expectations of 94% of patients in regard to lower denture stability, 100% for retention, and 82.4% for comfort. The mandibular three‐implant overdenture increased patient general satisfaction over a short period of time, but this improvement was not statistically significant. About 80% of patients would recommend this type of prosthesis to their peers but only 47% of them would agree to pay a large increase in the cost of treatment compared to a two‐implant overdenture.
Conclusions
The addition of a midline third implant to an existing mandibular two‐implant overdenture resulted in several improved patient‐reported outcomes.</description><subject>clinical trial</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Conversion</subject><subject>Correlation analysis</subject><subject>Dental Implants</subject><subject>Dental materials</subject><subject>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</subject><subject>Denture Retention</subject><subject>Denture, Complete, Lower</subject><subject>Denture, Overlay</subject><subject>Dentures</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mandible</subject><subject>mandibular prosthesis</subject><subject>overdentures</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>Patient-Centered Care</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Prostheses</subject><subject>Stability</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Statistical significance</subject><subject>Statistical tests</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Willingness to pay</subject><issn>0905-7161</issn><issn>1600-0501</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUtuFDEQhi1ERIbAggsgS2xg0Um52-6x2UUjHpFGAiFYtzzuauJRtz3Y7kSz4wicgaNxklSYBCEkvHD58dXvcv2MPRNwKmicuTGdikaCfsAWogWoQIF4yBZgQFVL0Ypj9jjnLQC0RptH7LiBVgthmgX7ec6vfbn04df3H3nebNEV7kYfvLMjL8nTHAMvl8hdDFeYsqdtHPhkQ-8382gTL9eRkv20G20ovESiE-JfR5HyegxlTviaf7TF05quHQVM2PM4FxcnzJw0qZqRnv8aMOdbrZ3dP2FHgx0zPr2LJ-zL2zefV--r9Yd3F6vzdeWkkrrSaJ3R2Gs36Ha5dI1Uphka26AAak4P7eBqA601rQQp1EbB0IMTiLKvwcjmhL086O5S_DZjLt3ks8OR_oBxzl0tlkbWSrdA6It_0G2cU6DqiDJQq1oZTdSrA-VSzDnh0O2Sn2zadwK6W-M6Mq77bRyxz-8U582E_R_y3ikCzg4ANQj3_1fqVutPB8kb0QWoxg</recordid><startdate>201903</startdate><enddate>201903</enddate><creator>Emami, Elham</creator><creator>Alesawy, Aminah</creator><creator>de Grandmont, Pierre</creator><creator>Cerutti‐Kopplin, Daiane</creator><creator>Kodama, Naoki</creator><creator>Menassa, Mélanie</creator><creator>Rompré, Pierre</creator><creator>Durand, Robert</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6526-606X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9958-1567</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7730-4139</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9969-8274</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201903</creationdate><title>A within‐subject clinical trial on the conversion of mandibular two‐implant to three‐implant overdenture: Patient‐centered outcomes and willingness to pay</title><author>Emami, Elham ; Alesawy, Aminah ; de Grandmont, Pierre ; Cerutti‐Kopplin, Daiane ; Kodama, Naoki ; Menassa, Mélanie ; Rompré, Pierre ; Durand, Robert</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4548-8eac98ed8cf8677c34593f3a3e10134d06fc2906a9640415b50fd0c1ee4d20943</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>clinical trial</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Conversion</topic><topic>Correlation analysis</topic><topic>Dental Implants</topic><topic>Dental materials</topic><topic>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</topic><topic>Denture Retention</topic><topic>Denture, Complete, Lower</topic><topic>Denture, Overlay</topic><topic>Dentures</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mandible</topic><topic>mandibular prosthesis</topic><topic>overdentures</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>Patient-Centered Care</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Prostheses</topic><topic>Stability</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Statistical significance</topic><topic>Statistical tests</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Willingness to pay</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Emami, Elham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alesawy, Aminah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Grandmont, Pierre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cerutti‐Kopplin, Daiane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kodama, Naoki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Menassa, Mélanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rompré, Pierre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Durand, Robert</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Wiley Free Content</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical oral implants research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Emami, Elham</au><au>Alesawy, Aminah</au><au>de Grandmont, Pierre</au><au>Cerutti‐Kopplin, Daiane</au><au>Kodama, Naoki</au><au>Menassa, Mélanie</au><au>Rompré, Pierre</au><au>Durand, Robert</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A within‐subject clinical trial on the conversion of mandibular two‐implant to three‐implant overdenture: Patient‐centered outcomes and willingness to pay</atitle><jtitle>Clinical oral implants research</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Oral Implants Res</addtitle><date>2019-03</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>218</spage><epage>228</epage><pages>218-228</pages><issn>0905-7161</issn><eissn>1600-0501</eissn><abstract>Objectives
To examine the impact of adding a third midline implant with stud attachment to a mandibular two‐implant overdenture on patient‐oriented outcomes.
Methods
In this pre–post design clinical trial, following the standard procedures, mandibular two‐implant overdentures of 17 edentulous individuals (61.9 ± 6.6 years) were converted to three‐implant overdentures by adding a stud attachment to an unloaded midline implant. Patient‐oriented outcomes included patient expectations and satisfaction with implant overdenture as well as willingness to pay the cost of conversion. Data were collected at baseline and at the 6‐week follow‐up using visual analog and binary scales as well as open‐ended questions. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, Spearman's correlation, Fisher exact test, Mann–Whitney U test, and the exact sign test.
Results
After connecting the third midline implant to the mandibular two‐implant overdenture, there was a statistically significant decrease in the anteroposterior movement (p = 0.005) as evaluated by clinicians. Moreover, study participants reported an increase in perceived stability of the overdenture (95% CI; 0.68–1.00, p = 0.002) and in their ability to speak (95% CI; 0.63–1.00, p = 0.008). The addition of a third implant met the expectations of 94% of patients in regard to lower denture stability, 100% for retention, and 82.4% for comfort. The mandibular three‐implant overdenture increased patient general satisfaction over a short period of time, but this improvement was not statistically significant. About 80% of patients would recommend this type of prosthesis to their peers but only 47% of them would agree to pay a large increase in the cost of treatment compared to a two‐implant overdenture.
Conclusions
The addition of a midline third implant to an existing mandibular two‐implant overdenture resulted in several improved patient‐reported outcomes.</abstract><cop>Denmark</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>30681193</pmid><doi>10.1111/clr.13408</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6526-606X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9958-1567</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7730-4139</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9969-8274</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0905-7161 |
| ispartof | Clinical oral implants research, 2019-03, Vol.30 (3), p.218-228 |
| issn | 0905-7161 1600-0501 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2179425860 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | clinical trial Clinical trials Conversion Correlation analysis Dental Implants Dental materials Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported Denture Retention Denture, Complete, Lower Denture, Overlay Dentures Humans Mandible mandibular prosthesis overdentures Patient Satisfaction Patient-Centered Care Patients Prostheses Stability Statistical analysis Statistical significance Statistical tests Treatment Outcome Willingness to pay |
| title | A within‐subject clinical trial on the conversion of mandibular two‐implant to three‐implant overdenture: Patient‐centered outcomes and willingness to pay |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T17%3A15%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20within%E2%80%90subject%20clinical%20trial%20on%20the%20conversion%20of%20mandibular%20two%E2%80%90implant%20to%20three%E2%80%90implant%20overdenture:%20Patient%E2%80%90centered%20outcomes%20and%20willingness%20to%20pay&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20oral%20implants%20research&rft.au=Emami,%20Elham&rft.date=2019-03&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=218&rft.epage=228&rft.pages=218-228&rft.issn=0905-7161&rft.eissn=1600-0501&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/clr.13408&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2179425860%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2190252598&rft_id=info:pmid/30681193&rfr_iscdi=true |