EdenteV2, Istex, Corpus, bibRecord, 000E04

A 5‐year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction

Identifieur interne : 000E04 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000E03; suivant : 000E05

A 5‐year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction

Auteurs : I. Naert ; S. Gizani ; M. Vuylsteke ; D. Van Steenberghe

Source :

Journal of Oral Rehabilitation [ 0305-182X ] ; 1999-03.

RBID : ISTEX:1C44077F5AE800B3C8E017794D26899FA6251614

English descriptors

Abstract

Prosthetic outcome and patient satisfaction were evaluated in order to investigate whether there is a need or advantage to splint two implants in the mandible retaining a hinging overdenture. This study included 36 fully edentulous patients randomly divided into three groups according to the attachment system they received: magnets, ball attachments or straight bars (reference group). None of the implants failed during the whole observation period in any of the groups. After 5 years of observation, the Bar group presented the highest retention capacity and the least prosthetic complications but revealed more mucositis and gingival hyperplasia. Patient satisfaction rated similar for all groups although the Magnet group showed lower retention forces. All patients would repeat the same treatment even though the majority of the Magnet group would prefer a more retentive solution because of limited denture stability.

Url:

https://api.istex.fr/document/1C44077F5AE800B3C8E017794D26899FA6251614/fulltext/pdf

DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.1999.00369.x

Links to Exploration step

ISTEX:1C44077F5AE800B3C8E017794D26899FA6251614

Le document en format XML

<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">A 5‐year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction</title>
<author><name sortKey="Naert, I" sort="Naert, I" uniqKey="Naert I" first="I." last="Naert">I. Naert</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University Leuven;</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Gizani, S" sort="Gizani, S" uniqKey="Gizani S" first="S." last="Gizani">S. Gizani</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University Leuven;</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Vuylsteke, M" sort="Vuylsteke, M" uniqKey="Vuylsteke M" first="M." last="Vuylsteke">M. Vuylsteke</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Statistics, Computing Centre, Catholic University Leuven; and</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Van Steenberghe, D" sort="Van Steenberghe, D" uniqKey="Van Steenberghe D" first="D." last="Van Steenberghe">D. Van Steenberghe</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University Leuven, Leuven, Belgium</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno>
<idno type="RBID">ISTEX:1C44077F5AE800B3C8E017794D26899FA6251614</idno>
<date when="1999" year="1999">1999</date>
<idno type="doi">10.1046/j.1365-2842.1999.00369.x</idno>
<idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/1C44077F5AE800B3C8E017794D26899FA6251614/fulltext/pdf</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000E04</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000E04</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">A 5‐year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction</title>
<author><name sortKey="Naert, I" sort="Naert, I" uniqKey="Naert I" first="I." last="Naert">I. Naert</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University Leuven;</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Gizani, S" sort="Gizani, S" uniqKey="Gizani S" first="S." last="Gizani">S. Gizani</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University Leuven;</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Vuylsteke, M" sort="Vuylsteke, M" uniqKey="Vuylsteke M" first="M." last="Vuylsteke">M. Vuylsteke</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Statistics, Computing Centre, Catholic University Leuven; and</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Van Steenberghe, D" sort="Van Steenberghe, D" uniqKey="Van Steenberghe D" first="D." last="Van Steenberghe">D. Van Steenberghe</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University Leuven, Leuven, Belgium</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<monogr></monogr>
<series><title level="j" type="main">Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title>
<title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL ORAL REHABILITATION</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0305-182X</idno>
<idno type="eISSN">1365-2842</idno>
<imprint><biblScope unit="vol">26</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" from="195">195</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" to="202">202</biblScope>
<publisher>Blackwell Science Ltd</publisher>
<pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace>
<date type="published" when="1999-03">1999-03</date>
</imprint>
<idno type="ISSN">0305-182X</idno>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
<seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0305-182X</idno>
</seriesStmt>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Ball group</term>
<term>Baseline</term>
<term>Blackwell science</term>
<term>Catholic university leuven</term>
<term>Dentistry</term>
<term>Denture</term>
<term>Different attachment systems</term>
<term>Edentulous patients</term>
<term>Food impaction</term>
<term>Hyperplasia</term>
<term>Implant</term>
<term>International journal</term>
<term>Least prosthetic complications</term>
<term>Magnet</term>
<term>Magnet group</term>
<term>Mandibular</term>
<term>Maxillofacial</term>
<term>Maxillofacial implants</term>
<term>Maxillofacial surgery</term>
<term>Mucositis</term>
<term>Naert</term>
<term>Observation period</term>
<term>Oral pathology</term>
<term>Oral rehabilitation</term>
<term>Other groups</term>
<term>Overdenture</term>
<term>Overdentures</term>
<term>Patient satisfaction</term>
<term>Prosthesis</term>
<term>Prosthesis installation</term>
<term>Prosthetic</term>
<term>Prosthetic complications</term>
<term>Prosthetic dentistry</term>
<term>Prosthetic outcome</term>
<term>Reference group</term>
<term>Retention force</term>
<term>Same treatment</term>
<term>Second part</term>
<term>Splinted</term>
<term>Third part</term>
<term>Ulcer decubitus</term>
<term>Unsplinted</term>
<term>Unsplinted implants</term>
<term>Whole group</term>
<term>Whole observation period</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Ball group</term>
<term>Baseline</term>
<term>Blackwell science</term>
<term>Catholic university leuven</term>
<term>Dentistry</term>
<term>Denture</term>
<term>Different attachment systems</term>
<term>Edentulous patients</term>
<term>Food impaction</term>
<term>Hyperplasia</term>
<term>Implant</term>
<term>International journal</term>
<term>Least prosthetic complications</term>
<term>Magnet</term>
<term>Magnet group</term>
<term>Mandibular</term>
<term>Maxillofacial</term>
<term>Maxillofacial implants</term>
<term>Maxillofacial surgery</term>
<term>Mucositis</term>
<term>Naert</term>
<term>Observation period</term>
<term>Oral pathology</term>
<term>Oral rehabilitation</term>
<term>Other groups</term>
<term>Overdenture</term>
<term>Overdentures</term>
<term>Patient satisfaction</term>
<term>Prosthesis</term>
<term>Prosthesis installation</term>
<term>Prosthetic</term>
<term>Prosthetic complications</term>
<term>Prosthetic dentistry</term>
<term>Prosthetic outcome</term>
<term>Reference group</term>
<term>Retention force</term>
<term>Same treatment</term>
<term>Second part</term>
<term>Splinted</term>
<term>Third part</term>
<term>Ulcer decubitus</term>
<term>Unsplinted</term>
<term>Unsplinted implants</term>
<term>Whole group</term>
<term>Whole observation period</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Prosthetic outcome and patient satisfaction were evaluated in order to investigate whether there is a need or advantage to splint two implants in the mandible retaining a hinging overdenture. This study included 36 fully edentulous patients randomly divided into three groups according to the attachment system they received: magnets, ball attachments or straight bars (reference group). None of the implants failed during the whole observation period in any of the groups. After 5 years of observation, the Bar group presented the highest retention capacity and the least prosthetic complications but revealed more mucositis and gingival hyperplasia. Patient satisfaction rated similar for all groups although the Magnet group showed lower retention forces. All patients would repeat the same treatment even though the majority of the Magnet group would prefer a more retentive solution because of limited denture stability.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName>
<keywords><teeft><json:string>prosthesis</json:string>
<json:string>denture</json:string>
<json:string>naert</json:string>
<json:string>prosthetic</json:string>
<json:string>overdentures</json:string>
<json:string>overdenture</json:string>
<json:string>implant</json:string>
<json:string>magnet group</json:string>
<json:string>unsplinted</json:string>
<json:string>ball group</json:string>
<json:string>patient satisfaction</json:string>
<json:string>mandibular</json:string>
<json:string>splinted</json:string>
<json:string>oral rehabilitation</json:string>
<json:string>blackwell science</json:string>
<json:string>maxillofacial</json:string>
<json:string>mucositis</json:string>
<json:string>prosthetic dentistry</json:string>
<json:string>magnet</json:string>
<json:string>dentistry</json:string>
<json:string>same treatment</json:string>
<json:string>baseline</json:string>
<json:string>retention force</json:string>
<json:string>unsplinted implants</json:string>
<json:string>second part</json:string>
<json:string>maxillofacial surgery</json:string>
<json:string>third part</json:string>
<json:string>international journal</json:string>
<json:string>hyperplasia</json:string>
<json:string>edentulous patients</json:string>
<json:string>reference group</json:string>
<json:string>oral pathology</json:string>
<json:string>catholic university leuven</json:string>
<json:string>food impaction</json:string>
<json:string>ulcer decubitus</json:string>
<json:string>whole group</json:string>
<json:string>different attachment systems</json:string>
<json:string>prosthetic outcome</json:string>
<json:string>prosthesis installation</json:string>
<json:string>prosthetic complications</json:string>
<json:string>observation period</json:string>
<json:string>other groups</json:string>
<json:string>least prosthetic complications</json:string>
<json:string>whole observation period</json:string>
<json:string>maxillofacial implants</json:string>
</teeft>
</keywords>
<author><json:item><name>I. Naert</name>
<affiliations><json:string>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University Leuven;</json:string>
</affiliations>
</json:item>
<json:item><name>S. Gizani</name>
<affiliations><json:string>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University Leuven;</json:string>
</affiliations>
</json:item>
<json:item><name>M. Vuylsteke</name>
<affiliations><json:string>Department of Statistics, Computing Centre, Catholic University Leuven; and</json:string>
</affiliations>
</json:item>
<json:item><name>D. Van Steenberghe</name>
<affiliations><json:string>Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University Leuven, Leuven, Belgium</json:string>
</affiliations>
</json:item>
</author>
<articleId><json:string>JOOR369</json:string>
</articleId>
<arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-834TVLMB-W</arkIstex>
<language><json:string>eng</json:string>
</language>
<originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string>
</originalGenre>
<abstract>Prosthetic outcome and patient satisfaction were evaluated in order to investigate whether there is a need or advantage to splint two implants in the mandible retaining a hinging overdenture. This study included 36 fully edentulous patients randomly divided into three groups according to the attachment system they received: magnets, ball attachments or straight bars (reference group). None of the implants failed during the whole observation period in any of the groups. After 5 years of observation, the Bar group presented the highest retention capacity and the least prosthetic complications but revealed more mucositis and gingival hyperplasia. Patient satisfaction rated similar for all groups although the Magnet group showed lower retention forces. All patients would repeat the same treatment even though the majority of the Magnet group would prefer a more retentive solution because of limited denture stability.</abstract>
<qualityIndicators><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative>
<abstractWordCount>136</abstractWordCount>
<abstractCharCount>925</abstractCharCount>
<keywordCount>0</keywordCount>
<score>7.225</score>
<pdfWordCount>3593</pdfWordCount>
<pdfCharCount>23009</pdfCharCount>
<pdfVersion>1.2</pdfVersion>
<pdfPageCount>8</pdfPageCount>
<pdfPageSize>612 x 792 pts (letter)</pdfPageSize>
</qualityIndicators>
<title>A 5‐year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction</title>
<pmid><json:string>10194726</json:string>
</pmid>
<genre><json:string>article</json:string>
</genre>
<host><title>Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title>
<language><json:string>unknown</json:string>
</language>
<doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</json:string>
</doi>
<issn><json:string>0305-182X</json:string>
</issn>
<eissn><json:string>1365-2842</json:string>
</eissn>
<publisherId><json:string>JOOR</json:string>
</publisherId>
<volume>26</volume>
<issue>3</issue>
<pages><first>195</first>
<last>202</last>
</pages>
<genre><json:string>journal</json:string>
</genre>
</host>
<namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>5</json:string>
<json:string>1</json:string>
<json:string>1999</json:string>
</date>
<geogName></geogName>
<orgName><json:string>Blackwell Science Ltd</json:string>
<json:string>Department of Statistics, Computing Centre, Catholic University Leuven</json:string>
<json:string>Belgium SUMMARY Prosthetic</json:string>
<json:string>Catholic University</json:string>
<json:string>Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery</json:string>
</orgName>
<orgName_funder></orgName_funder>
<orgName_provider></orgName_provider>
<persName><json:string>G. Does</json:string>
<json:string>I. Does</json:string>
<json:string>J. Would</json:string>
</persName>
<placeName><json:string>Switzerland</json:string>
<json:string>Bern</json:string>
<json:string>Bergen op Zoom</json:string>
<json:string>Gothenburg</json:string>
<json:string>Leuven</json:string>
<json:string>Sweden</json:string>
<json:string>Biel</json:string>
<json:string>Netherlands</json:string>
</placeName>
<ref_url></ref_url>
<ref_bibl><json:string>Davis, 1990</json:string>
<json:string>Naert et al., 1990</json:string>
<json:string>Boerrigter et al., 1995</json:string>
<json:string>de Grandmont et al., 1994</json:string>
<json:string>Hooghe & Naert, 1997</json:string>
<json:string>Naert et al., 1997b</json:string>
<json:string>Naert et al., 1994</json:string>
<json:string>Marcus et al., 1996</json:string>
<json:string>Naert et al., 1988</json:string>
<json:string>Burns et al., 1994</json:string>
<json:string>Naert et al., 1997a</json:string>
<json:string>Gift & Redford, 1992</json:string>
<json:string>Naert et al., 1998</json:string>
<json:string>Burns et al.</json:string>
<json:string>Petropoulos, Smith & Kousvelati, 1997</json:string>
<json:string>Helkimo, 1979</json:string>
<json:string>Zarb, 1982</json:string>
</ref_bibl>
<bibl></bibl>
</unitex>
</namedEntities>
<ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-834TVLMB-W</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>
</inist>
</categories>
<publicationDate>1999</publicationDate>
<copyrightDate>1999</copyrightDate>
<doi><json:string>10.1046/j.1365-2842.1999.00369.x</json:string>
</doi>
<id>1C44077F5AE800B3C8E017794D26899FA6251614</id>
<score>1</score>
<fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension>
<original>true</original>
<mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/1C44077F5AE800B3C8E017794D26899FA6251614/fulltext/pdf</uri>
</json:item>
<json:item><extension>zip</extension>
<original>false</original>
<mimetype>application/zip</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/1C44077F5AE800B3C8E017794D26899FA6251614/fulltext/zip</uri>
</json:item>
<istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/1C44077F5AE800B3C8E017794D26899FA6251614/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">A 5‐year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction</title>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority>
<publisher>Blackwell Science Ltd</publisher>
<pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace>
<date type="published" when="1999-03"></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">A 5‐year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction</title>
<title level="a" type="short">INFLUENCE OF SPLINTED AND UNSPLINTED ORAL IMPLANTS</title>
<author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">I.</forename>
<surname>Naert</surname>
</persName>
<affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University Leuven;</affiliation>
</author>
<author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">S.</forename>
<surname>Gizani</surname>
</persName>
<affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University Leuven;</affiliation>
</author>
<author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">M.</forename>
<surname>Vuylsteke</surname>
</persName>
<affiliation>Department of Statistics, Computing Centre, Catholic University Leuven; and</affiliation>
</author>
<author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">D.</forename>
<surname>Van Steenberghe</surname>
</persName>
<affiliation>Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University Leuven, Leuven, Belgium<address><country key="BE"></country>
</address>
</affiliation>
</author>
<idno type="istex">1C44077F5AE800B3C8E017794D26899FA6251614</idno>
<idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-834TVLMB-W</idno>
<idno type="DOI">10.1046/j.1365-2842.1999.00369.x</idno>
<idno type="unit">JOOR369</idno>
<idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:JOOR.JOOR369.pdf</idno>
</analytic>
<monogr><title level="j" type="main">Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title>
<title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL ORAL REHABILITATION</title>
<idno type="pISSN">0305-182X</idno>
<idno type="eISSN">1365-2842</idno>
<idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</idno>
<idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/jor.1999.26.issue-3</idno>
<idno type="product">JOOR</idno>
<idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno>
<imprint><biblScope unit="vol">26</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" from="195">195</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" to="202">202</biblScope>
<publisher>Blackwell Science Ltd</publisher>
<pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace>
<date type="published" when="1999-03"></date>
</imprint>
</monogr>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p>Prosthetic outcome and patient satisfaction were evaluated in order to investigate whether there is a need or advantage to splint two implants in the mandible retaining a hinging overdenture. This study included 36 fully edentulous patients randomly divided into three groups according to the attachment system they received: magnets, ball attachments or straight bars (reference group). None of the implants failed during the whole observation period in any of the groups. After 5 years of observation, the Bar group presented the highest retention capacity and the least prosthetic complications but revealed more mucositis and gingival hyperplasia. Patient satisfaction rated similar for all groups although the Magnet group showed lower retention forces. All patients would repeat the same treatment even though the majority of the Magnet group would prefer a more retentive solution because of limited denture stability.</p>
</abstract>
<textClass><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original Article</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/1C44077F5AE800B3C8E017794D26899FA6251614/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>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc>
</publisherInfo>
<doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</doi>
<issn type="print">0305-182X</issn>
<issn type="electronic">1365-2842</issn>
<idGroup><id type="product" value="JOOR"></id>
<id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id>
</idGroup>
<titleGroup><title type="main" sort="JOURNAL ORAL REHABILITATION">Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title>
<title type="short">Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title>
</titleGroup>
</publicationMeta>
<publicationMeta level="part" position="03003"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/jor.1999.26.issue-3</doi>
<numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="26">26</numbering>
<numbering type="journalIssue" number="3">3</numbering>
</numberingGroup>
<coverDate startDate="1999-03">March 1999</coverDate>
</publicationMeta>
<publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="0019500" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1046/j.1365-2842.1999.00369.x</doi>
<idGroup><id type="unit" value="JOOR369"></id>
</idGroup>
<titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Article</title>
</titleGroup>
<eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2001-12-25"></event>
<event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2001-12-25"></event>
<event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:Header result:Header" date="2010-03-15"></event>
<event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:4.0.1" date="2014-03-20"></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="195">195</numbering>
<numbering type="pageLast" number="202">202</numbering>
</numberingGroup>
<correspondenceTo> Professor I. E. Naert, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kapucijnenvoer 7, B‐3000 Leuven, Belgium. E‐mail: 
<email>ignace.naert@med.kuleuven.ac.be</email>
</correspondenceTo>
<linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:JOOR.JOOR369.pdf"></link>
</linkGroup>
</publicationMeta>
<contentMeta><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="1"></count>
<count type="tableTotal" number="9"></count>
<count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count>
<count type="referenceTotal" number="19"></count>
<count type="linksPubMed" number="0"></count>
<count type="linksCrossRef" number="0"></count>
</countGroup>
<titleGroup><title type="main">A 5‐year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction</title>
<title type="shortAuthors">I. NAERT <i>et al</i>
.</title>
<title type="short">INFLUENCE OF SPLINTED AND UNSPLINTED ORAL IMPLANTS</title>
</titleGroup>
<creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a0"><personName><givenNames>I.</givenNames>
<familyName>Naert</familyName>
</personName>
</creator>
<creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a0"><personName><givenNames>S.</givenNames>
<familyName>Gizani</familyName>
</personName>
</creator>
<creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>M.</givenNames>
<familyName>Vuylsteke</familyName>
</personName>
</creator>
<creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>D.</givenNames>
<familyName>Van Steenberghe</familyName>
</personName>
</creator>
</creators>
<affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a0"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University Leuven;</unparsedAffiliation>
</affiliation>
<affiliation xml:id="a1"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Statistics, Computing Centre, Catholic University Leuven; and</unparsedAffiliation>
</affiliation>
<affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="BE"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University Leuven, Leuven, Belgium</unparsedAffiliation>
</affiliation>
</affiliationGroup>
<abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p>Prosthetic outcome and patient satisfaction were evaluated in order to investigate whether there is a need or advantage to splint two implants in the mandible retaining a hinging overdenture. This study included 36 fully edentulous patients randomly divided into three groups according to the attachment system they received: magnets, ball attachments or straight bars (reference group). None of the implants failed during the whole observation period in any of the groups. After 5 years of observation, the Bar group presented the highest retention capacity and the least prosthetic complications but revealed more mucositis and gingival hyperplasia. Patient satisfaction rated similar for all groups although the Magnet group showed lower retention forces. All patients would repeat the same treatment even though the majority of the Magnet group would prefer a more retentive solution because of limited denture stability.</p>
</abstract>
</abstractGroup>
</contentMeta>
</header>
</component>
</istex:document>
</istex:metadataXml>
<mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>A 5‐year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction</title>
</titleInfo>
<titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>INFLUENCE OF SPLINTED AND UNSPLINTED ORAL IMPLANTS</title>
</titleInfo>
<titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>A 5‐year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal"><namePart type="given">I.</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Naert</namePart>
<affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University Leuven;</affiliation>
<role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal"><namePart type="given">S.</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Gizani</namePart>
<affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University Leuven;</affiliation>
<role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal"><namePart type="given">M.</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Vuylsteke</namePart>
<affiliation>Department of Statistics, Computing Centre, Catholic University Leuven; and</affiliation>
<role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal"><namePart type="given">D.</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Van Steenberghe</namePart>
<affiliation>Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University Leuven, Leuven, Belgium</affiliation>
<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">Oxford, UK</placeTerm>
</place>
<dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1999-03</dateIssued>
<copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1999</copyrightDate>
</originInfo>
<language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm>
<languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
</language>
<physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">1</extent>
<extent unit="tables">9</extent>
<extent unit="formulas">0</extent>
<extent unit="references">19</extent>
<extent unit="linksCrossRef">0</extent>
</physicalDescription>
<abstract lang="en">Prosthetic outcome and patient satisfaction were evaluated in order to investigate whether there is a need or advantage to splint two implants in the mandible retaining a hinging overdenture. This study included 36 fully edentulous patients randomly divided into three groups according to the attachment system they received: magnets, ball attachments or straight bars (reference group). None of the implants failed during the whole observation period in any of the groups. After 5 years of observation, the Bar group presented the highest retention capacity and the least prosthetic complications but revealed more mucositis and gingival hyperplasia. Patient satisfaction rated similar for all groups although the Magnet group showed lower retention forces. All patients would repeat the same treatment even though the majority of the Magnet group would prefer a more retentive solution because of limited denture stability.</abstract>
<relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title>
</titleInfo>
<titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title>
</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">0305-182X</identifier>
<identifier type="eISSN">1365-2842</identifier>
<identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</identifier>
<identifier type="PublisherID">JOOR</identifier>
<part><date>1999</date>
<detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption>
<number>26</number>
</detail>
<detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption>
<number>3</number>
</detail>
<extent unit="pages"><start>195</start>
<end>202</end>
</extent>
</part>
</relatedItem>
<identifier type="istex">1C44077F5AE800B3C8E017794D26899FA6251614</identifier>
<identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-834TVLMB-W</identifier>
<identifier type="DOI">10.1046/j.1365-2842.1999.00369.x</identifier>
<identifier type="ArticleID">JOOR369</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/1C44077F5AE800B3C8E017794D26899FA6251614/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 000E04 | SxmlIndent | more

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000E04 | 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:1C44077F5AE800B3C8E017794D26899FA6251614
   |texte=   A 5‐year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction
}}

This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32.
Data generation: Thu Nov 30 15:26:48 2017. Site generation: Tue Mar 8 16:36:20 2022

	Serveur d'exploration sur le patient édenté
	Attention, ce site est en cours de développement ! Attention, site généré par des moyens informatiques à partir de corpus bruts. Les informations ne sont donc pas validées.

Serveur d'exploration sur le patient édenté

A 5‐year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction

A 5‐year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction

Source :

English descriptors

Abstract

Links to Exploration step

Le document en format XML

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri