Two implant retained overdentures––A review of the literature supporting the McGill and York consensus statements
Abstract The McGill consensus statement on overdentures (14) was published following a symposium held at McGill University in Montreal, Canada in 2002. A panel of relevant experts in the field stated that: The evidence currently available suggests that the restoration of the edentulous mandible with...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of dentistry 2012-01, Vol.40 (1), p.22-34 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 34 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 22 |
container_title | Journal of dentistry |
container_volume | 40 |
creator | Thomason, J.M Kelly, S.A.M Bendkowski, A Ellis, J.S |
description | Abstract The McGill consensus statement on overdentures (14) was published following a symposium held at McGill University in Montreal, Canada in 2002. A panel of relevant experts in the field stated that: The evidence currently available suggests that the restoration of the edentulous mandible with a conventional denture is no longer the most appropriate first choice prosthodontic treatment. There is now overwhelming evidence that a two-implant overdenture should become the first choice of treatment for the edentulous mandible (14). In 2009, a further consensus statement was released as a support and follow-up to the McGill consensus statement. This report was jointly created by members of the BSSPD (British Society for the Study of Prosthetic Dentistry) Council and the panel of presenters at the BSSPD conference in York, UK in April 2009 (15). This report also highlighted that since the McGill statement in 2002, uptake by dentists of implant technology for complete denture wearers has been slow. The York statement concluded that ‘a substantial body of evidence is now available demonstrating that patients’ satisfaction and quality of life with ISOD mandibular overdentures is significantly greater than for conventional dentures. Much of this data comes from randomised controlled trials (15). Whilst it is accepted that the two-implant overdenture is not the gold standard of implant therapy it is the minimum standard that should be sufficient for most people, taking into account performance, patient satisfaction, cost and clinical time. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.08.017 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_912797497</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0300571211002132</els_id><sourcerecordid>912797497</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c615t-96bc7310d6a10ec4e9c3c8e7967759477525ffee5cdbb3c53c66f0e557bd27f83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkt9qFDEUxgdR7Lb6BIIERPRm15xkMplcVCilVqHihRX0KmQzZzTb2WRNMi298x18Q5_ETHe10AuFkFyc3_nOny9V9QToAig0r1aLVYc-LxgFWNB2QUHeq2bQSjUH2Xy-X80op3QuJLC9aj-lFaW0pkw9rPYYKADK61k1nl8F4tabwfhMImbjPHYkXGKctMeI6dePn-UcleClwysSepK_IRlcxmgmgKRxswkxO__1JvLenrphIMZ35EuIF8QGn9CnMZGUTcZ1kU2Pqge9GRI-3r0H1ac3J-fHb-dnH07fHR-dzW0DIs9Vs7SSA-0aAxRtjcpy26JUjZRC1eViou8Rhe2WS24Ft03TUxRCLjsm-5YfVC-2upsYvo-Ysl67ZHEo02IYk1bApJK1koV8-U8SGgm8LiVZQZ_dQVdhjL7MoctOKQho20mQbykbQ0oRe72Jbm3idYH05J9e6Rv_9OSfpq0u_pWspzvtcbnG7m_OH8MK8HwHmGTN0EfjrUu3nOBKtLUq3OGWw7LeYlzUyTr0FjsX0WbdBfefRl7fybeD866UvMBrTLcT68Q01R-nrzb9tNIlZcAZ_w284tFS</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1030151887</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Two implant retained overdentures––A review of the literature supporting the McGill and York consensus statements</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Thomason, J.M ; Kelly, S.A.M ; Bendkowski, A ; Ellis, J.S</creator><creatorcontrib>Thomason, J.M ; Kelly, S.A.M ; Bendkowski, A ; Ellis, J.S</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract The McGill consensus statement on overdentures (14) was published following a symposium held at McGill University in Montreal, Canada in 2002. A panel of relevant experts in the field stated that: The evidence currently available suggests that the restoration of the edentulous mandible with a conventional denture is no longer the most appropriate first choice prosthodontic treatment. There is now overwhelming evidence that a two-implant overdenture should become the first choice of treatment for the edentulous mandible (14). In 2009, a further consensus statement was released as a support and follow-up to the McGill consensus statement. This report was jointly created by members of the BSSPD (British Society for the Study of Prosthetic Dentistry) Council and the panel of presenters at the BSSPD conference in York, UK in April 2009 (15). This report also highlighted that since the McGill statement in 2002, uptake by dentists of implant technology for complete denture wearers has been slow. The York statement concluded that ‘a substantial body of evidence is now available demonstrating that patients’ satisfaction and quality of life with ISOD mandibular overdentures is significantly greater than for conventional dentures. Much of this data comes from randomised controlled trials (15). Whilst it is accepted that the two-implant overdenture is not the gold standard of implant therapy it is the minimum standard that should be sufficient for most people, taking into account performance, patient satisfaction, cost and clinical time.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0300-5712</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-176X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.08.017</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21911034</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Canada ; Costs and Cost Analysis ; Dental Implants ; Dental materials ; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported ; Dentistry ; Denture, Overlay ; Dentures ; Edentulousness ; Facial bones, jaws, teeth, parodontium: diseases, semeiology ; Head and neck surgery. Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics ; Humans ; Implants ; Jaw, Edentulous - rehabilitation ; Mandible ; Mastication ; Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics ; Medical sciences ; Non tumoral diseases ; Nutritional Physiological Phenomena ; Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology ; Panels ; Patient Satisfaction ; Patients ; Prostheses ; Prosthetics ; Qualitative Research ; Quality of Life ; Quality standards ; Studies ; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases ; Surgical implants ; Transplants & implants ; Trends</subject><ispartof>Journal of dentistry, 2012-01, Vol.40 (1), p.22-34</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>2011 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c615t-96bc7310d6a10ec4e9c3c8e7967759477525ffee5cdbb3c53c66f0e557bd27f83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c615t-96bc7310d6a10ec4e9c3c8e7967759477525ffee5cdbb3c53c66f0e557bd27f83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2011.08.017$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>309,310,314,776,780,785,786,3536,23910,23911,25119,27903,27904,45974</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=25395849$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21911034$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Thomason, J.M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kelly, S.A.M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bendkowski, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ellis, J.S</creatorcontrib><title>Two implant retained overdentures––A review of the literature supporting the McGill and York consensus statements</title><title>Journal of dentistry</title><addtitle>J Dent</addtitle><description>Abstract The McGill consensus statement on overdentures (14) was published following a symposium held at McGill University in Montreal, Canada in 2002. A panel of relevant experts in the field stated that: The evidence currently available suggests that the restoration of the edentulous mandible with a conventional denture is no longer the most appropriate first choice prosthodontic treatment. There is now overwhelming evidence that a two-implant overdenture should become the first choice of treatment for the edentulous mandible (14). In 2009, a further consensus statement was released as a support and follow-up to the McGill consensus statement. This report was jointly created by members of the BSSPD (British Society for the Study of Prosthetic Dentistry) Council and the panel of presenters at the BSSPD conference in York, UK in April 2009 (15). This report also highlighted that since the McGill statement in 2002, uptake by dentists of implant technology for complete denture wearers has been slow. The York statement concluded that ‘a substantial body of evidence is now available demonstrating that patients’ satisfaction and quality of life with ISOD mandibular overdentures is significantly greater than for conventional dentures. Much of this data comes from randomised controlled trials (15). Whilst it is accepted that the two-implant overdenture is not the gold standard of implant therapy it is the minimum standard that should be sufficient for most people, taking into account performance, patient satisfaction, cost and clinical time.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Canada</subject><subject>Costs and Cost Analysis</subject><subject>Dental Implants</subject><subject>Dental materials</subject><subject>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Denture, Overlay</subject><subject>Dentures</subject><subject>Edentulousness</subject><subject>Facial bones, jaws, teeth, parodontium: diseases, semeiology</subject><subject>Head and neck surgery. Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Implants</subject><subject>Jaw, Edentulous - rehabilitation</subject><subject>Mandible</subject><subject>Mastication</subject><subject>Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Non tumoral diseases</subject><subject>Nutritional Physiological Phenomena</subject><subject>Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology</subject><subject>Panels</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Prostheses</subject><subject>Prosthetics</subject><subject>Qualitative Research</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Quality standards</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</subject><subject>Surgical implants</subject><subject>Transplants & implants</subject><subject>Trends</subject><issn>0300-5712</issn><issn>1879-176X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkt9qFDEUxgdR7Lb6BIIERPRm15xkMplcVCilVqHihRX0KmQzZzTb2WRNMi298x18Q5_ETHe10AuFkFyc3_nOny9V9QToAig0r1aLVYc-LxgFWNB2QUHeq2bQSjUH2Xy-X80op3QuJLC9aj-lFaW0pkw9rPYYKADK61k1nl8F4tabwfhMImbjPHYkXGKctMeI6dePn-UcleClwysSepK_IRlcxmgmgKRxswkxO__1JvLenrphIMZ35EuIF8QGn9CnMZGUTcZ1kU2Pqge9GRI-3r0H1ac3J-fHb-dnH07fHR-dzW0DIs9Vs7SSA-0aAxRtjcpy26JUjZRC1eViou8Rhe2WS24Ft03TUxRCLjsm-5YfVC-2upsYvo-Ysl67ZHEo02IYk1bApJK1koV8-U8SGgm8LiVZQZ_dQVdhjL7MoctOKQho20mQbykbQ0oRe72Jbm3idYH05J9e6Rv_9OSfpq0u_pWspzvtcbnG7m_OH8MK8HwHmGTN0EfjrUu3nOBKtLUq3OGWw7LeYlzUyTr0FjsX0WbdBfefRl7fybeD866UvMBrTLcT68Q01R-nrzb9tNIlZcAZ_w284tFS</recordid><startdate>20120101</startdate><enddate>20120101</enddate><creator>Thomason, J.M</creator><creator>Kelly, S.A.M</creator><creator>Bendkowski, A</creator><creator>Ellis, J.S</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>IQODW</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>7QF</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7QQ</scope><scope>7SE</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8G</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120101</creationdate><title>Two implant retained overdentures––A review of the literature supporting the McGill and York consensus statements</title><author>Thomason, J.M ; Kelly, S.A.M ; Bendkowski, A ; Ellis, J.S</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c615t-96bc7310d6a10ec4e9c3c8e7967759477525ffee5cdbb3c53c66f0e557bd27f83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Canada</topic><topic>Costs and Cost Analysis</topic><topic>Dental Implants</topic><topic>Dental materials</topic><topic>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Denture, Overlay</topic><topic>Dentures</topic><topic>Edentulousness</topic><topic>Facial bones, jaws, teeth, parodontium: diseases, semeiology</topic><topic>Head and neck surgery. Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Implants</topic><topic>Jaw, Edentulous - rehabilitation</topic><topic>Mandible</topic><topic>Mastication</topic><topic>Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Non tumoral diseases</topic><topic>Nutritional Physiological Phenomena</topic><topic>Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology</topic><topic>Panels</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Prostheses</topic><topic>Prosthetics</topic><topic>Qualitative Research</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Quality standards</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</topic><topic>Surgical implants</topic><topic>Transplants & implants</topic><topic>Trends</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Thomason, J.M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kelly, S.A.M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bendkowski, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ellis, J.S</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aluminium Industry Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Corrosion Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology & Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Copper Technical Reference Library</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of dentistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Thomason, J.M</au><au>Kelly, S.A.M</au><au>Bendkowski, A</au><au>Ellis, J.S</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Two implant retained overdentures––A review of the literature supporting the McGill and York consensus statements</atitle><jtitle>Journal of dentistry</jtitle><addtitle>J Dent</addtitle><date>2012-01-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>22</spage><epage>34</epage><pages>22-34</pages><issn>0300-5712</issn><eissn>1879-176X</eissn><abstract>Abstract The McGill consensus statement on overdentures (14) was published following a symposium held at McGill University in Montreal, Canada in 2002. A panel of relevant experts in the field stated that: The evidence currently available suggests that the restoration of the edentulous mandible with a conventional denture is no longer the most appropriate first choice prosthodontic treatment. There is now overwhelming evidence that a two-implant overdenture should become the first choice of treatment for the edentulous mandible (14). In 2009, a further consensus statement was released as a support and follow-up to the McGill consensus statement. This report was jointly created by members of the BSSPD (British Society for the Study of Prosthetic Dentistry) Council and the panel of presenters at the BSSPD conference in York, UK in April 2009 (15). This report also highlighted that since the McGill statement in 2002, uptake by dentists of implant technology for complete denture wearers has been slow. The York statement concluded that ‘a substantial body of evidence is now available demonstrating that patients’ satisfaction and quality of life with ISOD mandibular overdentures is significantly greater than for conventional dentures. Much of this data comes from randomised controlled trials (15). Whilst it is accepted that the two-implant overdenture is not the gold standard of implant therapy it is the minimum standard that should be sufficient for most people, taking into account performance, patient satisfaction, cost and clinical time.</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>21911034</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jdent.2011.08.017</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0300-5712 |
ispartof | Journal of dentistry, 2012-01, Vol.40 (1), p.22-34 |
issn | 0300-5712 1879-176X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_912797497 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Biological and medical sciences Canada Costs and Cost Analysis Dental Implants Dental materials Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported Dentistry Denture, Overlay Dentures Edentulousness Facial bones, jaws, teeth, parodontium: diseases, semeiology Head and neck surgery. Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics Humans Implants Jaw, Edentulous - rehabilitation Mandible Mastication Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics Medical sciences Non tumoral diseases Nutritional Physiological Phenomena Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology Panels Patient Satisfaction Patients Prostheses Prosthetics Qualitative Research Quality of Life Quality standards Studies Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases Surgical implants Transplants & implants Trends |
title | Two implant retained overdentures––A review of the literature supporting the McGill and York consensus statements |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T15%3A00%3A17IST&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=Two%20implant%20retained%20overdentures%E2%80%93%E2%80%93A%20review%20of%20the%20literature%20supporting%20the%20McGill%20and%20York%20consensus%20statements&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20dentistry&rft.au=Thomason,%20J.M&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=22&rft.epage=34&rft.pages=22-34&rft.issn=0300-5712&rft.eissn=1879-176X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jdent.2011.08.017&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E912797497%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=1030151887&rft_id=info:pmid/21911034&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0300571211002132&rfr_iscdi=true |