Effectiveness of three treatment modalities for the edentulous mandible
Identifieur interne : 002C81 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 002C80; suivant : 002C82Effectiveness of three treatment modalities for the edentulous mandible
Auteurs : Gerry M. Raghoebar ; Henny J. A. Meijer ; Boudewijn Stegenga ; Martin A. Van'T Hof ; Rob P. Van Oort ; Arjan VissinkSource :
- Clinical Oral Implants Research [ 0905-7161 ] ; 2000-06.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Ability questionnaire, Avec ancrage, Better scores, Clinical trials, Complete denture, Complete denture wearers, Complete dentures, Control group, Dental implants, Dental research, Denture, Denture complaints, Denture complaints questionnaire, Denture satisfaction, Edentulous, Edentulous mandible, Edentulous patients, Edentulous period, Endosseous, Endosseous implants, Este estudio, General anaesthesia, Hard food, Healing period, Implant, Implants research, International journal, Longitudinal study, Lower denture, Mandible, Mandibular, Mandibular height, Mandibular overdenture, Mandibular overdentures, Masticatory performance, Maxillofacial, Maxillofacial implants, Maxillofacial prosthodontics, Maxillofacial surgery, Meticulous construction, Modality, Nach, Nuevo juego, Oral implantology, Osseointegrated implants, Other items, Overall denture satisfaction, Overall denture satisfaction rating, Overdenture, Overdentures, Patient satisfaction, Preprosthetic, Preprosthetic surgery, Prosthetic dentistry, Prothese, Prothese amovible, Protheses amovibles, Protocol analysis, Raghoebar, Randomized, Rating scale, Satisfaction rate, Satisfaction rates, Satisfaction scores, Score complaints, Score problems, Score satisfaction rate, Sensory changes, Standard treatment, Standardized procedure, Tough food, Treatment modalities, Treatment options, University hospital groningen, Upper denture, Vestibuloplasty.
- Teeft :
- Ability questionnaire, Avec ancrage, Better scores, Clinical trials, Complete denture, Complete denture wearers, Complete dentures, Control group, Dental implants, Dental research, Denture, Denture complaints, Denture complaints questionnaire, Denture satisfaction, Edentulous, Edentulous mandible, Edentulous patients, Edentulous period, Endosseous, Endosseous implants, Este estudio, General anaesthesia, Hard food, Healing period, Implant, Implants research, International journal, Longitudinal study, Lower denture, Mandible, Mandibular, Mandibular height, Mandibular overdenture, Mandibular overdentures, Masticatory performance, Maxillofacial, Maxillofacial implants, Maxillofacial prosthodontics, Maxillofacial surgery, Meticulous construction, Modality, Nach, Nuevo juego, Oral implantology, Osseointegrated implants, Other items, Overall denture satisfaction, Overall denture satisfaction rating, Overdenture, Overdentures, Patient satisfaction, Preprosthetic, Preprosthetic surgery, Prosthetic dentistry, Prothese, Prothese amovible, Protheses amovibles, Protocol analysis, Raghoebar, Randomized, Rating scale, Satisfaction rate, Satisfaction rates, Satisfaction scores, Score complaints, Score problems, Score satisfaction rate, Sensory changes, Standard treatment, Standardized procedure, Tough food, Treatment modalities, Treatment options, University hospital groningen, Upper denture, Vestibuloplasty.
Abstract
Currently, 3 treatment options are available for patients with denture complaints and an edentulous mandible with a height of at least 15 mm: meticulous construction of a new set of dentures (CD), construction of a new set of dentures following preprosthetic surgery to enlarge the denture‐bearing area (PPS), and construction of an implant‐retained mandibular overdenture (IRO). The aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction and subjective chewing ability of edentulous patients treated with one of these treatment modalities. Ninety edentulous patients (Cawood class IV and V, mean mandibular height 20.7 mm) were randomly assigned to receive 1 of these 3 groups. Denture satisfaction and chewing ability were assessed using questionnaires focusing on denture‐related complaints and problems chewing different types of food were assessed before treatment, and 1‐ and 5‐years after treatment. At the 1‐year evaluation, significantly better scores were observed in the 2 surgical groups (IRO, PPS) than in the CD group. At 5‐year evaluation the “complaints of the lower denture” showed a significantly better score in the IRO group when compared to the PPS and CD groups. No significant differences were observed between the PPS and CD group. From this study it is concluded that both in the short and long term denture satisfaction appears most favourable in the IRO group when compared to the PPS and CD groups. Implant‐retained overdentures are therefore a satisfactory treatment modality for edentulous patients with problems with their lower denture, even in cases of not severely resorbed mandibles.
Url:
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003195.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:5AEC8879D94564E2C7FE12BCACF1F5F0BA477778Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Effectiveness of three treatment modalities for the edentulous mandible</title><author><name sortKey="Raghoebar, Gerry M" sort="Raghoebar, Gerry M" uniqKey="Raghoebar G" first="Gerry M." last="Raghoebar">Gerry M. Raghoebar</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Meijer, Henny J A" sort="Meijer, Henny J A" uniqKey="Meijer H" first="Henny J. A." last="Meijer">Henny J. A. Meijer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Stegenga, Boudewijn" sort="Stegenga, Boudewijn" uniqKey="Stegenga B" first="Boudewijn" last="Stegenga">Boudewijn Stegenga</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Van T Hof, Martin A" sort="Van T Hof, Martin A" uniqKey="Van T Hof M" first="Martin A." last="Van'T Hof">Martin A. Van'T Hof</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Medical Statistics, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Van Oort, Rob P" sort="Van Oort, Rob P" uniqKey="Van Oort R" first="Rob P." last="Van Oort">Rob P. Van Oort</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Vissink, Arjan" sort="Vissink, Arjan" uniqKey="Vissink A" first="Arjan" last="Vissink">Arjan Vissink</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:5AEC8879D94564E2C7FE12BCACF1F5F0BA477778</idno><date when="2000" year="2000">2000</date><idno type="doi">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003195.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/5AEC8879D94564E2C7FE12BCACF1F5F0BA477778/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">002C81</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">002C81</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Effectiveness of three treatment modalities for the edentulous mandible</title><author><name sortKey="Raghoebar, Gerry M" sort="Raghoebar, Gerry M" uniqKey="Raghoebar G" first="Gerry M." last="Raghoebar">Gerry M. Raghoebar</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Meijer, Henny J A" sort="Meijer, Henny J A" uniqKey="Meijer H" first="Henny J. A." last="Meijer">Henny J. A. Meijer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Stegenga, Boudewijn" sort="Stegenga, Boudewijn" uniqKey="Stegenga B" first="Boudewijn" last="Stegenga">Boudewijn Stegenga</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Van T Hof, Martin A" sort="Van T Hof, Martin A" uniqKey="Van T Hof M" first="Martin A." last="Van'T Hof">Martin A. Van'T Hof</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Medical Statistics, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Van Oort, Rob P" sort="Van Oort, Rob P" uniqKey="Van Oort R" first="Rob P." last="Van Oort">Rob P. Van Oort</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Vissink, Arjan" sort="Vissink, Arjan" uniqKey="Vissink A" first="Arjan" last="Vissink">Arjan Vissink</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">11</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="195">195</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="201">201</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">7</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2000-06">2000-06</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Ability questionnaire</term><term>Avec ancrage</term><term>Better scores</term><term>Clinical trials</term><term>Complete denture</term><term>Complete denture wearers</term><term>Complete dentures</term><term>Control group</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Dental research</term><term>Denture</term><term>Denture complaints</term><term>Denture complaints questionnaire</term><term>Denture satisfaction</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous mandible</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Edentulous period</term><term>Endosseous</term><term>Endosseous implants</term><term>Este estudio</term><term>General anaesthesia</term><term>Hard food</term><term>Healing period</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implants research</term><term>International journal</term><term>Longitudinal study</term><term>Lower denture</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular height</term><term>Mandibular overdenture</term><term>Mandibular overdentures</term><term>Masticatory performance</term><term>Maxillofacial</term><term>Maxillofacial implants</term><term>Maxillofacial prosthodontics</term><term>Maxillofacial surgery</term><term>Meticulous construction</term><term>Modality</term><term>Nach</term><term>Nuevo juego</term><term>Oral implantology</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Other items</term><term>Overall denture satisfaction</term><term>Overall denture satisfaction rating</term><term>Overdenture</term><term>Overdentures</term><term>Patient satisfaction</term><term>Preprosthetic</term><term>Preprosthetic surgery</term><term>Prosthetic dentistry</term><term>Prothese</term><term>Prothese amovible</term><term>Protheses amovibles</term><term>Protocol analysis</term><term>Raghoebar</term><term>Randomized</term><term>Rating scale</term><term>Satisfaction rate</term><term>Satisfaction rates</term><term>Satisfaction scores</term><term>Score complaints</term><term>Score problems</term><term>Score satisfaction rate</term><term>Sensory changes</term><term>Standard treatment</term><term>Standardized procedure</term><term>Tough food</term><term>Treatment modalities</term><term>Treatment options</term><term>University hospital groningen</term><term>Upper denture</term><term>Vestibuloplasty</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Ability questionnaire</term><term>Avec ancrage</term><term>Better scores</term><term>Clinical trials</term><term>Complete denture</term><term>Complete denture wearers</term><term>Complete dentures</term><term>Control group</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Dental research</term><term>Denture</term><term>Denture complaints</term><term>Denture complaints questionnaire</term><term>Denture satisfaction</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous mandible</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Edentulous period</term><term>Endosseous</term><term>Endosseous implants</term><term>Este estudio</term><term>General anaesthesia</term><term>Hard food</term><term>Healing period</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implants research</term><term>International journal</term><term>Longitudinal study</term><term>Lower denture</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular height</term><term>Mandibular overdenture</term><term>Mandibular overdentures</term><term>Masticatory performance</term><term>Maxillofacial</term><term>Maxillofacial implants</term><term>Maxillofacial prosthodontics</term><term>Maxillofacial surgery</term><term>Meticulous construction</term><term>Modality</term><term>Nach</term><term>Nuevo juego</term><term>Oral implantology</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Other items</term><term>Overall denture satisfaction</term><term>Overall denture satisfaction rating</term><term>Overdenture</term><term>Overdentures</term><term>Patient satisfaction</term><term>Preprosthetic</term><term>Preprosthetic surgery</term><term>Prosthetic dentistry</term><term>Prothese</term><term>Prothese amovible</term><term>Protheses amovibles</term><term>Protocol analysis</term><term>Raghoebar</term><term>Randomized</term><term>Rating scale</term><term>Satisfaction rate</term><term>Satisfaction rates</term><term>Satisfaction scores</term><term>Score complaints</term><term>Score problems</term><term>Score satisfaction rate</term><term>Sensory changes</term><term>Standard treatment</term><term>Standardized procedure</term><term>Tough food</term><term>Treatment modalities</term><term>Treatment options</term><term>University hospital groningen</term><term>Upper denture</term><term>Vestibuloplasty</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Currently, 3 treatment options are available for patients with denture complaints and an edentulous mandible with a height of at least 15 mm: meticulous construction of a new set of dentures (CD), construction of a new set of dentures following preprosthetic surgery to enlarge the denture‐bearing area (PPS), and construction of an implant‐retained mandibular overdenture (IRO). The aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction and subjective chewing ability of edentulous patients treated with one of these treatment modalities. Ninety edentulous patients (Cawood class IV and V, mean mandibular height 20.7 mm) were randomly assigned to receive 1 of these 3 groups. Denture satisfaction and chewing ability were assessed using questionnaires focusing on denture‐related complaints and problems chewing different types of food were assessed before treatment, and 1‐ and 5‐years after treatment. At the 1‐year evaluation, significantly better scores were observed in the 2 surgical groups (IRO, PPS) than in the CD group. At 5‐year evaluation the “complaints of the lower denture” showed a significantly better score in the IRO group when compared to the PPS and CD groups. No significant differences were observed between the PPS and CD group. From this study it is concluded that both in the short and long term denture satisfaction appears most favourable in the IRO group when compared to the PPS and CD groups. Implant‐retained overdentures are therefore a satisfactory treatment modality for edentulous patients with problems with their lower denture, even in cases of not severely resorbed mandibles.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>denture</json:string><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>mandibular</json:string><json:string>mandible</json:string><json:string>overdenture</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial</json:string><json:string>overdentures</json:string><json:string>lower denture</json:string><json:string>preprosthetic</json:string><json:string>raghoebar</json:string><json:string>endosseous</json:string><json:string>international journal</json:string><json:string>edentulous</json:string><json:string>randomized</json:string><json:string>preprosthetic surgery</json:string><json:string>endosseous implants</json:string><json:string>prothese</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial surgery</json:string><json:string>satisfaction rate</json:string><json:string>nach</json:string><json:string>vestibuloplasty</json:string><json:string>patient satisfaction</json:string><json:string>treatment modalities</json:string><json:string>score problems</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial implants</json:string><json:string>complete dentures</json:string><json:string>denture complaints</json:string><json:string>edentulous mandible</json:string><json:string>osseointegrated implants</json:string><json:string>edentulous patients</json:string><json:string>hard food</json:string><json:string>modality</json:string><json:string>control group</json:string><json:string>upper denture</json:string><json:string>denture satisfaction</json:string><json:string>overall denture satisfaction rating</json:string><json:string>mandibular overdenture</json:string><json:string>tough food</json:string><json:string>prosthetic dentistry</json:string><json:string>clinical trials</json:string><json:string>score complaints</json:string><json:string>mandibular overdentures</json:string><json:string>ability questionnaire</json:string><json:string>oral implantology</json:string><json:string>score satisfaction rate</json:string><json:string>healing period</json:string><json:string>prothese amovible</json:string><json:string>overall denture satisfaction</json:string><json:string>standardized procedure</json:string><json:string>denture complaints questionnaire</json:string><json:string>rating scale</json:string><json:string>sensory changes</json:string><json:string>protocol analysis</json:string><json:string>other items</json:string><json:string>satisfaction rates</json:string><json:string>dental implants</json:string><json:string>complete denture</json:string><json:string>masticatory performance</json:string><json:string>complete denture wearers</json:string><json:string>satisfaction scores</json:string><json:string>edentulous period</json:string><json:string>general anaesthesia</json:string><json:string>avec ancrage</json:string><json:string>protheses amovibles</json:string><json:string>standard treatment</json:string><json:string>nuevo juego</json:string><json:string>este estudio</json:string><json:string>university hospital groningen</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial prosthodontics</json:string><json:string>better scores</json:string><json:string>mandibular height</json:string><json:string>meticulous construction</json:string><json:string>treatment options</json:string><json:string>dental research</json:string><json:string>longitudinal study</json:string><json:string>implants research</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Gerry M. Raghoebar</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Henny J. A. Meijer</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Boudewijn Stegenga</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Martin A. Van't Hof</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Medical Statistics, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Rob P. Van Oort</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Arjan Vissink</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands</json:string></affiliations></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>vestibuloplasty</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>preprosthetic surgery</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>conventional denture</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>patient satisfaction</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>clr9o514</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-RMFBVJRD-5</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Currently, 3 treatment options are available for patients with denture complaints and an edentulous mandible with a height of at least 15 mm: meticulous construction of a new set of dentures (CD), construction of a new set of dentures following preprosthetic surgery to enlarge the denture‐bearing area (PPS), and construction of an implant‐retained mandibular overdenture (IRO). The aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction and subjective chewing ability of edentulous patients treated with one of these treatment modalities. Ninety edentulous patients (Cawood class IV and V, mean mandibular height 20.7 mm) were randomly assigned to receive 1 of these 3 groups. Denture satisfaction and chewing ability were assessed using questionnaires focusing on denture‐related complaints and problems chewing different types of food were assessed before treatment, and 1‐ and 5‐years after treatment. At the 1‐year evaluation, significantly better scores were observed in the 2 surgical groups (IRO, PPS) than in the CD group. At 5‐year evaluation the “complaints of the lower denture” showed a significantly better score in the IRO group when compared to the PPS and CD groups. No significant differences were observed between the PPS and CD group. From this study it is concluded that both in the short and long term denture satisfaction appears most favourable in the IRO group when compared to the PPS and CD groups. Implant‐retained overdentures are therefore a satisfactory treatment modality for edentulous patients with problems with their lower denture, even in cases of not severely resorbed mandibles.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>9.68</score><pdfWordCount>4716</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>30307</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.2</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>7</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595 x 794 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>247</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1618</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>5</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Effectiveness of three treatment modalities for the edentulous mandible</title><pmid><json:string>11168210</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>0905-7161</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1600-0501</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>CLR</json:string></publisherId><volume>11</volume><issue>3</issue><pages><first>195</first><last>201</last><total>7</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2000</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Department of Medical Statistics, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands Key</json:string><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery</json:string><json:string>University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands</json:string><json:string>Netherlands Tel</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>P. van Oort</json:string><json:string>J. A. Meijer</json:string><json:string>G. M. Raghoebar</json:string><json:string>Arjan Vissink</json:string><json:string>Gerry M. Raghoebar</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Groningen</json:string><json:string>Germany</json:string><json:string>Mannheim</json:string><json:string>Hof</json:string><json:string>Sweden</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Van Steenberghe et al. 1987</json:string><json:string>Harle & Anderson 1993</json:string><json:string>Neart et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Haraldson et al. 1988</json:string><json:string>Stoelinga 1984</json:string><json:string>Tallgren 1972</json:string><json:string>Geertman et al. 1994</json:string><json:string>Pocock 1983</json:string><json:string>Kiyak et al. 1990</json:string><json:string>Batenburg et al. 1993</json:string><json:string>Boerrigter et al. 1995a,b</json:string><json:string>Batenburg et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Cawood & Howell 1988</json:string><json:string>Boerrigter et al. (1995b)</json:string><json:string>Kirsch & Mentag 1986</json:string><json:string>Meijer et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Barnes 1990</json:string><json:string>Raghoebar et al.</json:string><json:string>Van Waas 1990</json:string><json:string>Jemt et al. 1996</json:string><json:string>Boerrigter et al. 1995b</json:string><json:string>Antczak-Bouckoms & Chalmers 1988</json:string><json:string>Neart et al. 1988</json:string><json:string>Adell et al. 1981</json:string><json:string>Blomberg & Lindquist 1983</json:string><json:string>Zelen 1990</json:string><json:string>Clancy et al. 1991</json:string><json:string>Mericske-Stern et al. 1994</json:string><json:string>Wismeijer et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Kalk 1979</json:string><json:string>Vervoorn et al. 1988</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-RMFBVJRD-5</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - engineering, biomedical</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 - Oral Surgery</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>2000</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2000</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003195.x</json:string></doi><id>5AEC8879D94564E2C7FE12BCACF1F5F0BA477778</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/5AEC8879D94564E2C7FE12BCACF1F5F0BA477778/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/5AEC8879D94564E2C7FE12BCACF1F5F0BA477778/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/5AEC8879D94564E2C7FE12BCACF1F5F0BA477778/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Effectiveness of three treatment modalities for the edentulous mandible</title><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2000-06"></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">Effectiveness of three treatment modalities for the edentulous mandible</title><title level="a" type="sub">A five‐year randomized clinical trial</title><title level="a" type="short">Efficacy of three treatment modalities for the edentulous mandible</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Gerry M.</forename><surname>Raghoebar</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Henny J. A.</forename><surname>Meijer</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Boudewijn</forename><surname>Stegenga</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">Martin A.</forename><surname>Hof</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Medical Statistics, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0004"><persName><forename type="first">Rob P.</forename><surname>Oort</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0005"><persName><forename type="first">Arjan</forename><surname>Vissink</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">5AEC8879D94564E2C7FE12BCACF1F5F0BA477778</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-RMFBVJRD-5</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003195.x</idno><idno type="supplier">clr9o514</idno><idno type="unit">CLR11003195</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CLR.CLR11003195.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="pISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/clr.2000.11.issue-3</idno><idno type="product">CLR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">11</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="195">195</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="201">201</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">7</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2000-06"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p>Currently, 3 treatment options are available for patients with denture complaints and an edentulous mandible with a height of at least 15 mm: meticulous construction of a new set of dentures (CD), construction of a new set of dentures following preprosthetic surgery to enlarge the denture‐bearing area (PPS), and construction of an implant‐retained mandibular overdenture (IRO). The aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction and subjective chewing ability of edentulous patients treated with one of these treatment modalities. Ninety edentulous patients (Cawood class IV and V, mean mandibular height 20.7 mm) were randomly assigned to receive 1 of these 3 groups. Denture satisfaction and chewing ability were assessed using questionnaires focusing on denture‐related complaints and problems chewing different types of food were assessed before treatment, and 1‐ and 5‐years after treatment. At the 1‐year evaluation, significantly better scores were observed in the 2 surgical groups (IRO, PPS) than in the CD group. At 5‐year evaluation the “complaints of the lower denture” showed a significantly better score in the IRO group when compared to the PPS and CD groups. No significant differences were observed between the PPS and CD group. From this study it is concluded that both in the short and long term denture satisfaction appears most favourable in the IRO group when compared to the PPS and CD groups. Implant‐retained overdentures are therefore a satisfactory treatment modality for edentulous patients with problems with their lower denture, even in cases of not severely resorbed mandibles.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">dental implants</term><term xml:id="k2">vestibuloplasty</term><term xml:id="k3">preprosthetic surgery</term><term xml:id="k4">conventional denture</term><term xml:id="k5">patient satisfaction</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original Article</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change>undefined</change><change>[object Object]</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/5AEC8879D94564E2C7FE12BCACF1F5F0BA477778/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley component found"><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>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisherName><publisherLoc>Copenhagen</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</doi><issn type="print">0905-7161</issn><issn type="electronic">1600-0501</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="CLR"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="06003"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/clr.2000.11.issue-3</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="11">11</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="3">3</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2000-06">June 2000</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="0019500" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003195.x</doi><idGroup><id type="supplier" value="clr9o514"></id><id type="unit" value="CLR11003195"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="7"></count></countGroup><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="2014-03-12"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-16"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="195">195</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="201">201</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Dr G. M. Raghoebar, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prostodontics, University Hospital Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands
Tel.: +31 50 3613840
Fax: +31 50 3611136
e‐mail:
<email>g.m.raghoebar@kchir.azg.nl</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CLR.CLR11003195.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Accepted for publication 20 April 1999</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="0"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="0"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="0"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="5755"></count><count type="linksPubMed" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Effectiveness of three treatment modalities for the edentulous mandible</title><title type="subtitle">A five‐year randomized clinical trial</title><title type="shortAuthors">Raghoebar et al.</title><title type="short">Efficacy of three treatment modalities for the edentulous mandible</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Gerry M.</givenNames><familyName>Raghoebar</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Henny J. A.</givenNames><familyName>Meijer</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Boudewijn</givenNames><familyName>Stegenga</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Martin A.</givenNames><familyNamePrefix>Van't</familyNamePrefix><familyName>
Hof
</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr5" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Rob P.</givenNames><familyNamePrefix>Van</familyNamePrefix><familyName>
Oort
</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr6" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Arjan</givenNames><familyName>Vissink</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="NL"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="NL"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Medical Statistics, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">dental implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">vestibuloplasty</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">preprosthetic surgery</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">conventional denture</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">patient satisfaction</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p>Currently, 3 treatment options are available for patients with denture complaints and an edentulous mandible with a height of at least 15 mm: meticulous construction of a new set of dentures (CD), construction of a new set of dentures following preprosthetic surgery to enlarge the denture‐bearing area (PPS), and construction of an implant‐retained mandibular overdenture (IRO). The aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction and subjective chewing ability of edentulous patients treated with one of these treatment modalities. Ninety edentulous patients (Cawood class IV and V, mean mandibular height 20.7 mm) were randomly assigned to receive 1 of these 3 groups. Denture satisfaction and chewing ability were assessed using questionnaires focusing on denture‐related complaints and problems chewing different types of food were assessed before treatment, and 1‐ and 5‐years after treatment. At the 1‐year evaluation, significantly better scores were observed in the 2 surgical groups (IRO, PPS) than in the CD group. At 5‐year evaluation the “complaints of the lower denture” showed a significantly better score in the IRO group when compared to the PPS and CD groups. No significant differences were observed between the PPS and CD group. From this study it is concluded that both in the short and long term denture satisfaction appears most favourable in the IRO group when compared to the PPS and CD groups. Implant‐retained overdentures are therefore a satisfactory treatment modality for edentulous patients with problems with their lower denture, even in cases of not severely resorbed mandibles.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Effectiveness of three treatment modalities for the edentulous mandible</title><subTitle>A five‐year randomized clinical trial</subTitle></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Efficacy of three treatment modalities for the edentulous mandible</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Effectiveness of three treatment modalities for the edentulous mandible</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Gerry M.</namePart><namePart type="family">Raghoebar</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Henny J. A.</namePart><namePart type="family">Meijer</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Boudewijn</namePart><namePart type="family">Stegenga</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Martin A.</namePart><namePart type="family">Van't Hof</namePart><affiliation>Department of Medical Statistics, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Rob P.</namePart><namePart type="family">Van Oort</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Arjan</namePart><namePart type="family">Vissink</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands</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>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Copenhagen</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2000-06</dateIssued><edition>Accepted for publication 20 April 1999</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2000</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">0</extent><extent unit="tables">0</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">0</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">0</extent><extent unit="words">5755</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">Currently, 3 treatment options are available for patients with denture complaints and an edentulous mandible with a height of at least 15 mm: meticulous construction of a new set of dentures (CD), construction of a new set of dentures following preprosthetic surgery to enlarge the denture‐bearing area (PPS), and construction of an implant‐retained mandibular overdenture (IRO). The aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction and subjective chewing ability of edentulous patients treated with one of these treatment modalities. Ninety edentulous patients (Cawood class IV and V, mean mandibular height 20.7 mm) were randomly assigned to receive 1 of these 3 groups. Denture satisfaction and chewing ability were assessed using questionnaires focusing on denture‐related complaints and problems chewing different types of food were assessed before treatment, and 1‐ and 5‐years after treatment. At the 1‐year evaluation, significantly better scores were observed in the 2 surgical groups (IRO, PPS) than in the CD group. At 5‐year evaluation the “complaints of the lower denture” showed a significantly better score in the IRO group when compared to the PPS and CD groups. No significant differences were observed between the PPS and CD group. From this study it is concluded that both in the short and long term denture satisfaction appears most favourable in the IRO group when compared to the PPS and CD groups. Implant‐retained overdentures are therefore a satisfactory treatment modality for edentulous patients with problems with their lower denture, even in cases of not severely resorbed mandibles.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>dental implants</topic><topic>vestibuloplasty</topic><topic>preprosthetic surgery</topic><topic>conventional denture</topic><topic>patient satisfaction</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Clinical Oral Implants Research</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">0905-7161</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1600-0501</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">CLR</identifier><part><date>2000</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>11</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>3</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>195</start><end>201</end><total>7</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">5AEC8879D94564E2C7FE12BCACF1F5F0BA477778</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-RMFBVJRD-5</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003195.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">clr9o514</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>Munksgaard International Publishers</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/5AEC8879D94564E2C7FE12BCACF1F5F0BA477778/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 002C81 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 002C81 | 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:5AEC8879D94564E2C7FE12BCACF1F5F0BA477778
|texte= Effectiveness of three treatment modalities for the edentulous mandible
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |