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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of dentistry 2012-01, Vol.40 (1), p.22-34
Hauptverfasser: Thomason, J.M, Kelly, S.A.M, Bendkowski, A, Ellis, J.S
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 &amp; 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>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=25395849$$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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Corrosion Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology &amp; Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Copper Technical Reference Library</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; 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