Patient Evaluation of Treatment with Fixed Prostheses Supported by Implants or a Combination of Teeth and Implants
Identifieur interne : 000068 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000067; suivant : 000069Patient Evaluation of Treatment with Fixed Prostheses Supported by Implants or a Combination of Teeth and Implants
Auteurs : Mats Kronström ; Mats Trulsson ; Björn SöderfeldtSource :
- Journal of Prosthodontics [ 1059-941X ] ; 2004-09.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Abutment, Abutment teeth, Clin, Complete arch, Dental implants, Denture, Edentulous, Edentulous jaws, Implant, Maxilla, Maxillary, Maxillary prostheses, Natural roots, Natural teeth, Oral function, Osseointegrated implants, Patient satisfaction, Periodontal, Periodontal mechanoreceptors, Phonetic disturbances, Present study, Prosthesis, Prosthodontic treatment, Range years, Tisp, Tisp group, Treatment outcome.
- Teeft :
- Abutment, Abutment teeth, Clin, Complete arch, Dental implants, Denture, Edentulous, Edentulous jaws, Implant, Maxilla, Maxillary, Maxillary prostheses, Natural roots, Natural teeth, Oral function, Osseointegrated implants, Patient satisfaction, Periodontal, Periodontal mechanoreceptors, Phonetic disturbances, Present study, Prosthesis, Prosthodontic treatment, Range years, Tisp, Tisp group, Treatment outcome.
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this study was to compare treatment outcomes among subjects with complete arch fixed prostheses in the maxilla, supported by implants or a combination of natural teeth and dental implants. Materials and Methods: Twenty‐one subjects with maxillary tooth‐ and implant‐supported fixed prostheses and 21 subjects with maxillary implant‐supported fixed prostheses were identified and included in the study. All abutment teeth in the group with tooth‐ and implant‐supported prostheses were provided with cemented copings that incorporated threads for vertical locking screws. Frameworks were fabricated with a gold alloy that was veneered with acrylic resin or ceramic materials. All frameworks were screw‐retained to implants and copings. Frameworks in the group with implant‐supported prostheses were fabricated with milled titanium or gold alloy to which denture teeth and resin base material were applied. All prostheses had a minimum of 8 units, at least 4 of which were in one quadrant. Subjects in both groups were mailed a questionnaire consisting of 15 questions focused on various factors related to treatment outcome, such as oral function and patient satisfaction. Results: The response rate was 86%. Both groups reported a high satisfaction rate for most items with few regretting their choice of treatment. Most individuals in both groups reported great improvement in chewing ability and few reported phonetic disturbances. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups. Conclusion: The results of the present study showed similarity in questionnaire responses between the 2 groups of participants. High satisfaction was reported both among subjects who received a complete arch fixed prosthesis in the maxilla supported by dental implants only, as well as among those whose prostheses were supported by a combination of natural teeth and dental implants.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04027.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:014B0349BF8BCA07062BF4F0B95A8CE3E4646B13Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Patient Evaluation of Treatment with Fixed Prostheses Supported by Implants or a Combination of Teeth and Implants</title><author><name sortKey="Kronstrom, Mats" sort="Kronstrom, Mats" uniqKey="Kronstrom M" first="Mats" last="Kronström">Mats Kronström</name></author><author><name sortKey="Trulsson, Mats" sort="Trulsson, Mats" uniqKey="Trulsson M" first="Mats" last="Trulsson">Mats Trulsson</name></author><author><name sortKey="Soderfeldt, Bjorn" sort="Soderfeldt, Bjorn" uniqKey="Soderfeldt B" first="Björn" last="Söderfeldt">Björn Söderfeldt</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:014B0349BF8BCA07062BF4F0B95A8CE3E4646B13</idno><date when="2004" year="2004">2004</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04027.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/014B0349BF8BCA07062BF4F0B95A8CE3E4646B13/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000068</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000068</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Patient Evaluation of Treatment with Fixed Prostheses Supported by Implants or a Combination of Teeth and Implants</title><author><name sortKey="Kronstrom, Mats" sort="Kronstrom, Mats" uniqKey="Kronstrom M" first="Mats" last="Kronström">Mats Kronström</name></author><author><name sortKey="Trulsson, Mats" sort="Trulsson, Mats" uniqKey="Trulsson M" first="Mats" last="Trulsson">Mats Trulsson</name></author><author><name sortKey="Soderfeldt, Bjorn" sort="Soderfeldt, Bjorn" uniqKey="Soderfeldt B" first="Björn" last="Söderfeldt">Björn Söderfeldt</name></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Journal of Prosthodontics</title><title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS</title><idno type="ISSN">1059-941X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1532-849X</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">13</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="160">160</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="165">165</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">6</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Science Ltd</publisher><pubPlace> 350 Main Street , Malden , MA 02148 , USA , and 9600 Garsington Road , Oxford OX4 2DQ , UK . </pubPlace><date type="published" when="2004-09">2004-09</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1059-941X</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1059-941X</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment</term><term>Abutment teeth</term><term>Clin</term><term>Complete arch</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Denture</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous jaws</term><term>Implant</term><term>Maxilla</term><term>Maxillary</term><term>Maxillary prostheses</term><term>Natural roots</term><term>Natural teeth</term><term>Oral function</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Patient satisfaction</term><term>Periodontal</term><term>Periodontal mechanoreceptors</term><term>Phonetic disturbances</term><term>Present study</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthodontic treatment</term><term>Range years</term><term>Tisp</term><term>Tisp group</term><term>Treatment outcome</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment</term><term>Abutment teeth</term><term>Clin</term><term>Complete arch</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Denture</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous jaws</term><term>Implant</term><term>Maxilla</term><term>Maxillary</term><term>Maxillary prostheses</term><term>Natural roots</term><term>Natural teeth</term><term>Oral function</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Patient satisfaction</term><term>Periodontal</term><term>Periodontal mechanoreceptors</term><term>Phonetic disturbances</term><term>Present study</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthodontic treatment</term><term>Range years</term><term>Tisp</term><term>Tisp group</term><term>Treatment outcome</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Purpose: The objective of this study was to compare treatment outcomes among subjects with complete arch fixed prostheses in the maxilla, supported by implants or a combination of natural teeth and dental implants. Materials and Methods: Twenty‐one subjects with maxillary tooth‐ and implant‐supported fixed prostheses and 21 subjects with maxillary implant‐supported fixed prostheses were identified and included in the study. All abutment teeth in the group with tooth‐ and implant‐supported prostheses were provided with cemented copings that incorporated threads for vertical locking screws. Frameworks were fabricated with a gold alloy that was veneered with acrylic resin or ceramic materials. All frameworks were screw‐retained to implants and copings. Frameworks in the group with implant‐supported prostheses were fabricated with milled titanium or gold alloy to which denture teeth and resin base material were applied. All prostheses had a minimum of 8 units, at least 4 of which were in one quadrant. Subjects in both groups were mailed a questionnaire consisting of 15 questions focused on various factors related to treatment outcome, such as oral function and patient satisfaction. Results: The response rate was 86%. Both groups reported a high satisfaction rate for most items with few regretting their choice of treatment. Most individuals in both groups reported great improvement in chewing ability and few reported phonetic disturbances. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups. Conclusion: The results of the present study showed similarity in questionnaire responses between the 2 groups of participants. High satisfaction was reported both among subjects who received a complete arch fixed prosthesis in the maxilla supported by dental implants only, as well as among those whose prostheses were supported by a combination of natural teeth and dental implants.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>prosthesis</json:string><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>tisp</json:string><json:string>abutment</json:string><json:string>natural teeth</json:string><json:string>dental implants</json:string><json:string>maxillary</json:string><json:string>tisp group</json:string><json:string>maxilla</json:string><json:string>oral function</json:string><json:string>denture</json:string><json:string>periodontal</json:string><json:string>clin</json:string><json:string>abutment teeth</json:string><json:string>present study</json:string><json:string>osseointegrated implants</json:string><json:string>edentulous</json:string><json:string>patient satisfaction</json:string><json:string>complete arch</json:string><json:string>maxillary prostheses</json:string><json:string>phonetic disturbances</json:string><json:string>treatment outcome</json:string><json:string>periodontal mechanoreceptors</json:string><json:string>natural roots</json:string><json:string>range years</json:string><json:string>edentulous jaws</json:string><json:string>prosthodontic treatment</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Mats Kronström DDS, PhD</name></json:item><json:item><name>Mats Trulsson DDS, PhD</name></json:item><json:item><name>Björn Söderfeldt Dr.Med.Sc., PhD</name></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>dental implants</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>fixed prostheses</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>quality of life</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>chewing ability</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>JOPR4027</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-RHDWBTSK-P</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Purpose: The objective of this study was to compare treatment outcomes among subjects with complete arch fixed prostheses in the maxilla, supported by implants or a combination of natural teeth and dental implants. Materials and Methods: Twenty‐one subjects with maxillary tooth‐ and implant‐supported fixed prostheses and 21 subjects with maxillary implant‐supported fixed prostheses were identified and included in the study. All abutment teeth in the group with tooth‐ and implant‐supported prostheses were provided with cemented copings that incorporated threads for vertical locking screws. Frameworks were fabricated with a gold alloy that was veneered with acrylic resin or ceramic materials. All frameworks were screw‐retained to implants and copings. Frameworks in the group with implant‐supported prostheses were fabricated with milled titanium or gold alloy to which denture teeth and resin base material were applied. All prostheses had a minimum of 8 units, at least 4 of which were in one quadrant. Subjects in both groups were mailed a questionnaire consisting of 15 questions focused on various factors related to treatment outcome, such as oral function and patient satisfaction. Results: The response rate was 86%. Both groups reported a high satisfaction rate for most items with few regretting their choice of treatment. Most individuals in both groups reported great improvement in chewing ability and few reported phonetic disturbances. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups. Conclusion: The results of the present study showed similarity in questionnaire responses between the 2 groups of participants. High satisfaction was reported both among subjects who received a complete arch fixed prosthesis in the maxilla supported by dental implants only, as well as among those whose prostheses were supported by a combination of natural teeth and dental implants.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8.011</score><pdfWordCount>3011</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>20221</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>6</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>594 x 779 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>282</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1915</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>4</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Patient Evaluation of Treatment with Fixed Prostheses Supported by Implants or a Combination of Teeth and Implants</title><pmid><json:string>15345015</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Journal of Prosthodontics</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1532-849X</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>1059-941X</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1532-849X</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>JOPR</json:string></publisherId><volume>13</volume><issue>3</issue><pages><first>160</first><last>165</last><total>6</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2004</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Department of Dental Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B</json:string><json:string>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Odontology, Center for Oral Health Sciences, Malm</json:string><json:string>Dalhousie University</json:string><json:string>Division of Prosthodontics</json:string><json:string>Department of Prosthetic Dentisty, Institute of Odontology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden</json:string><json:string>American College of Prosthodontists</json:string><json:string>Department of Oral Public Health, Faculty of Odontology, Center for Oral Health Sciences, Malm</json:string><json:string>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Central Hospital</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Evaluation</json:string><json:string>Nova Scotia</json:string><json:string>Med</json:string><json:string>Mats Kronstr</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Canada</json:string><json:string>Europe</json:string><json:string>America</json:string><json:string>Sweden</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-RHDWBTSK-P</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - General Dentistry</json:string></scopus><inist><json:string>1 - sciences appliquees, technologies et medecines</json:string><json:string>2 - sciences biologiques et medicales</json:string><json:string>3 - sciences medicales</json:string><json:string>4 - pathologie infectieuse</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>2004</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2004</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04027.x</json:string></doi><id>014B0349BF8BCA07062BF4F0B95A8CE3E4646B13</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/014B0349BF8BCA07062BF4F0B95A8CE3E4646B13/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/014B0349BF8BCA07062BF4F0B95A8CE3E4646B13/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/014B0349BF8BCA07062BF4F0B95A8CE3E4646B13/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Patient Evaluation of Treatment with Fixed Prostheses Supported by Implants or a Combination of Teeth and Implants</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Science Ltd</publisher><pubPlace> 350 Main Street , Malden , MA 02148 , USA , and 9600 Garsington Road , Oxford OX4 2DQ , UK . </pubPlace><date type="published" when="2004-09"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Patient Evaluation of Treatment with Fixed Prostheses Supported by Implants or a Combination of Teeth and Implants</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Mats</forename><surname>Kronström</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS, PhD</roleName></persName></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Mats</forename><surname>Trulsson</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS, PhD</roleName></persName></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Björn</forename><surname>Söderfeldt</surname><roleName type="degree">Dr.Med.Sc., PhD</roleName></persName></author><idno type="istex">014B0349BF8BCA07062BF4F0B95A8CE3E4646B13</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-RHDWBTSK-P</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04027.x</idno><idno type="unit">JOPR4027</idno><idno type="supplier">jopr4027</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:JOPR.JOPR4027.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Journal of Prosthodontics</title><title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS</title><idno type="pISSN">1059-941X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1532-849X</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1532-849X</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/jopr.2004.13.issue-3</idno><idno type="product">JOPR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">13</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="160">160</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="165">165</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">6</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Science Ltd</publisher><pubPlace> 350 Main Street , Malden , MA 02148 , USA , and 9600 Garsington Road , Oxford OX4 2DQ , UK . </pubPlace><date type="published" when="2004-09"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p>
<hi rend="italic"><emph><span>Purpose</span></emph>:</hi> The objective of this study was to compare treatment outcomes among subjects with complete arch fixed prostheses in the maxilla, supported by implants or a combination of natural teeth and dental implants.</p><p>
<hi rend="italic"><emph><span>Materials and Methods</span></emph>:</hi> Twenty‐one subjects with maxillary tooth‐ and implant‐supported fixed prostheses and 21 subjects with maxillary implant‐supported fixed prostheses were identified and included in the study. All abutment teeth in the group with tooth‐ and implant‐supported prostheses were provided with cemented copings that incorporated threads for vertical locking screws. Frameworks were fabricated with a gold alloy that was veneered with acrylic resin or ceramic materials. All frameworks were screw‐retained to implants and copings. Frameworks in the group with implant‐supported prostheses were fabricated with milled titanium or gold alloy to which denture teeth and resin base material were applied. All prostheses had a minimum of 8 units, at least 4 of which were in one quadrant. Subjects in both groups were mailed a questionnaire consisting of 15 questions focused on various factors related to treatment outcome, such as oral function and patient satisfaction.</p><p>
<hi rend="italic"><emph><span>Results</span></emph>:</hi> The response rate was 86%. Both groups reported a high satisfaction rate for most items with few regretting their choice of treatment. Most individuals in both groups reported great improvement in chewing ability and few reported phonetic disturbances. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups.</p><p>
<hi rend="italic"><emph><span>Conclusion</span></emph>:</hi> The results of the present study showed similarity in questionnaire responses between the 2 groups of participants. High satisfaction was reported both among subjects who received a complete arch fixed prosthesis in the maxilla supported by dental implants only, as well as among those whose prostheses were supported by a combination of natural teeth and dental implants.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">dental implants</term><term xml:id="k2">fixed prostheses</term><term xml:id="k3">quality of life</term><term xml:id="k4">chewing ability</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Basic Science Research</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/014B0349BF8BCA07062BF4F0B95A8CE3E4646B13/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Science Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc> 350 Main Street , Malden , MA 02148 , USA , and 9600 Garsington Road , Oxford OX4 2DQ , UK . </publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1532-849X</doi><issn type="print">1059-941X</issn><issn type="electronic">1532-849X</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="JOPR"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS">Journal of Prosthodontics</title><title type="subtitle">Implant, Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="09003"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/jopr.2004.13.issue-3</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="13">13</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="3">3</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2004-09">September 2004</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="4" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04027.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="JOPR4027"></id><id type="supplier" value="jopr4027"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="6"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1"><sc>Basic Science Research</sc></title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2004-09-02"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2004-09-02"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.4 mode:FullText source:FullText result:FullText" date="2010-03-30"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-31"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-30"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="160">160</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="165">165</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo> Dr. Mats Kronström, Division of Prosthodontics, Department of Dental Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 3J5. E‐mail: <email>mats.kronstrom@dal.ca</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:JOPR.JOPR4027.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Accepted February 25, 2004.</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="3"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="4"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="1"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="27"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="32"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Patient Evaluation of Treatment with Fixed Prostheses Supported by Implants or a Combination of Teeth and Implants</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" noteRef="#fn1"><personName><givenNames>Mats</givenNames><familyName>Kronström</familyName><degrees>DDS, PhD</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" noteRef="#fn2"><personName><givenNames>Mats</givenNames><familyName>Trulsson</familyName><degrees>DDS, PhD</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" noteRef="#fn3"><personName><givenNames>Björn</givenNames><familyName>Söderfeldt</familyName><degrees>Dr.Med.Sc., PhD</degrees></personName></creator></creators><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">dental implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">fixed prostheses</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">quality of life</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">chewing ability</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p> <i><span cssStyle="text-decoration:underline">Purpose</span>:</i> The objective of this study was to compare treatment outcomes among subjects with complete arch fixed prostheses in the maxilla, supported by implants or a combination of natural teeth and dental implants.</p><p> <i><span cssStyle="text-decoration:underline">Materials and Methods</span>:</i> Twenty‐one subjects with maxillary tooth‐ and implant‐supported fixed prostheses and 21 subjects with maxillary implant‐supported fixed prostheses were identified and included in the study. All abutment teeth in the group with tooth‐ and implant‐supported prostheses were provided with cemented copings that incorporated threads for vertical locking screws. Frameworks were fabricated with a gold alloy that was veneered with acrylic resin or ceramic materials. All frameworks were screw‐retained to implants and copings. Frameworks in the group with implant‐supported prostheses were fabricated with milled titanium or gold alloy to which denture teeth and resin base material were applied. All prostheses had a minimum of 8 units, at least 4 of which were in one quadrant. Subjects in both groups were mailed a questionnaire consisting of 15 questions focused on various factors related to treatment outcome, such as oral function and patient satisfaction.</p><p> <i><span cssStyle="text-decoration:underline">Results</span>:</i> The response rate was 86%. Both groups reported a high satisfaction rate for most items with few regretting their choice of treatment. Most individuals in both groups reported great improvement in chewing ability and few reported phonetic disturbances. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups.</p><p> <i><span cssStyle="text-decoration:underline">Conclusion</span>:</i> The results of the present study showed similarity in questionnaire responses between the 2 groups of participants. High satisfaction was reported both among subjects who received a complete arch fixed prosthesis in the maxilla supported by dental implants only, as well as among those whose prostheses were supported by a combination of natural teeth and dental implants.</p><!--
J Prosthodont 2004;13:160-165. Copyright © 2004 by The American College of Prosthodontists.
--></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta><noteGroup><note xml:id="fn1"><label>1</label><p>
Associate Professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Odontology, Center for Oral Health Sciences, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden and Department of Dental Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.</p></note><note xml:id="fn2"><label>2</label><p>
Associate Professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentisty, Institute of Odontology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.</p></note><note xml:id="fn3"><label>3</label><p>
Professor, Department of Oral Public Health, Faculty of Odontology, Center for Oral Health Sciences, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden.</p></note></noteGroup></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Patient Evaluation of Treatment with Fixed Prostheses Supported by Implants or a Combination of Teeth and Implants</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Patient Evaluation of Treatment with Fixed Prostheses Supported by Implants or a Combination of Teeth and Implants</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Mats</namePart><namePart type="family">Kronström</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS, PhD</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Mats</namePart><namePart type="family">Trulsson</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS, PhD</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Björn</namePart><namePart type="family">Söderfeldt</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">Dr.Med.Sc., PhD</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Science Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">350 Main Street , Malden , MA 02148 , USA , and 9600 Garsington Road , Oxford OX4 2DQ , UK .</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2004-09</dateIssued><edition>Accepted February 25, 2004.</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2004</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">3</extent><extent unit="tables">4</extent><extent unit="formulas">1</extent><extent unit="references">27</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">32</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">Purpose: The objective of this study was to compare treatment outcomes among subjects with complete arch fixed prostheses in the maxilla, supported by implants or a combination of natural teeth and dental implants. Materials and Methods: Twenty‐one subjects with maxillary tooth‐ and implant‐supported fixed prostheses and 21 subjects with maxillary implant‐supported fixed prostheses were identified and included in the study. All abutment teeth in the group with tooth‐ and implant‐supported prostheses were provided with cemented copings that incorporated threads for vertical locking screws. Frameworks were fabricated with a gold alloy that was veneered with acrylic resin or ceramic materials. All frameworks were screw‐retained to implants and copings. Frameworks in the group with implant‐supported prostheses were fabricated with milled titanium or gold alloy to which denture teeth and resin base material were applied. All prostheses had a minimum of 8 units, at least 4 of which were in one quadrant. Subjects in both groups were mailed a questionnaire consisting of 15 questions focused on various factors related to treatment outcome, such as oral function and patient satisfaction. Results: The response rate was 86%. Both groups reported a high satisfaction rate for most items with few regretting their choice of treatment. Most individuals in both groups reported great improvement in chewing ability and few reported phonetic disturbances. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups. Conclusion: The results of the present study showed similarity in questionnaire responses between the 2 groups of participants. High satisfaction was reported both among subjects who received a complete arch fixed prosthesis in the maxilla supported by dental implants only, as well as among those whose prostheses were supported by a combination of natural teeth and dental implants.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>dental implants</topic><topic>fixed prostheses</topic><topic>quality of life</topic><topic>chewing ability</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Prosthodontics</title><subTitle>Implant, Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry</subTitle></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">1059-941X</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1532-849X</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1532-849X</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">JOPR</identifier><part><date>2004</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>13</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>3</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>160</start><end>165</end><total>6</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">014B0349BF8BCA07062BF4F0B95A8CE3E4646B13</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-RHDWBTSK-P</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04027.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">JOPR4027</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Science Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/014B0349BF8BCA07062BF4F0B95A8CE3E4646B13/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000068 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000068 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:014B0349BF8BCA07062BF4F0B95A8CE3E4646B13
|texte= Patient Evaluation of Treatment with Fixed Prostheses Supported by Implants or a Combination of Teeth and Implants
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |