Five years of aftercare of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures
Identifieur interne : 006190 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 006189; suivant : 006191Five years of aftercare of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures
Auteurs : A. Visser ; M. E. Geertman ; H. J. A. Meijer ; G. M. Raghoebar ; J. M. Kwakman ; N. H. J. Creugers ; R. P. Van OortSource :
- Journal of Oral Rehabilitation [ 0305-182X ] ; 2002-02.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Aftercare, Blackwell science, Bone level, Branemark, Branemark implant system, Clinical aspects, Clinical implant performance, Clinical implant performance scale, Clinical trial, Complete denture, Conventional dentures, Denture, Different implant systems, Edentulous, Edentulous mandible, Edentulous patients, Endosseous, Endosseous implant systems, Endosseous implants, Evaluation period, Groningen, High number, Implant, Implant insertion, Implant loss, Implant system, Implant systems, Implants research, Insertion, International journal, Lower denture, Mandible, Mandibular, Mandibular dentures, Mandibular overdentures, Maxillofacial, Maxillofacial implants, Maxillofacial prosthodontics, Maxillofacial surgery, Minor complications, Nijmegen, Nijmegen group, Oral implantology, Oral maxillofacial surgery, Oral rehabilitation, Overdenture, Overdenture vestibulumplasty, Overdentures, Prosthetic, Prosthetic aftercare, Prosthetic dentistry, Superstructure, Surgical, Surgical aftercare, Survival rate, Transmandibular, Transmandibular implant, Transmandibular implant group, Transmandibular implant system, University hospital groningen, Upper denture, Vestibuloplasty.
- Teeft :
- Aftercare, Blackwell science, Bone level, Branemark, Branemark implant system, Clinical aspects, Clinical implant performance, Clinical implant performance scale, Clinical trial, Complete denture, Conventional dentures, Denture, Different implant systems, Edentulous, Edentulous mandible, Edentulous patients, Endosseous, Endosseous implant systems, Endosseous implants, Evaluation period, Groningen, High number, Implant, Implant insertion, Implant loss, Implant system, Implant systems, Implants research, Insertion, International journal, Lower denture, Mandible, Mandibular, Mandibular dentures, Mandibular overdentures, Maxillofacial, Maxillofacial implants, Maxillofacial prosthodontics, Maxillofacial surgery, Minor complications, Nijmegen, Nijmegen group, Oral implantology, Oral maxillofacial surgery, Oral rehabilitation, Overdenture, Overdenture vestibulumplasty, Overdentures, Prosthetic, Prosthetic aftercare, Prosthetic dentistry, Superstructure, Surgical, Surgical aftercare, Survival rate, Transmandibular, Transmandibular implant, Transmandibular implant group, Transmandibular implant system, University hospital groningen, Upper denture, Vestibuloplasty.
Abstract
The purpose of this multicentre randomized clinical trial was to analyse surgical and prosthetic aftercare and clinical implant performance of edentulous patients with implant‐retained mandibular overdentures and of patients with conventional dentures, either or not after pre‐prosthetic vestibuloplasty and deepening of the floor of the mouth. The evaluation period was 5 years. The implant systems evaluated were the IMZ implant system, the Brånemark implant system and the Transmandibular Implant system. The centre in Groningen had five groups (n=149) and the centre in Nijmegen had three groups (n=86). The evaluation comprised of surgical and prosthetic aftercare, together with clinical implant performance (CIP). The highest implant loss (29%) is found in the Transmandibular Implant group. All groups had prosthetic revisions and complications according to the CIP‐scale. The majority of the patients in the endosseous implant groups were subject to minor complications. The CIP‐score of the Transmandibular Implant group is significantly higher than the scores of the other groups, because of the high number of lost posts. In 26˙1% of the patients in this group score 4 is given, which means failure of the implant system. From this study it can be concluded that the endosseous implant systems used in this study have less surgical aftercare and a better clinical implant performance than the Transmandibular Implant system and are therefore the systems of choice for the edentulous mandible.
Url:
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00834.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:C4EE21A6B43D1AD3BB8A755064C816A305098C2CLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Five years of aftercare of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures</title><author><name sortKey="Visser, A" sort="Visser, A" uniqKey="Visser A" first="A." last="Visser">A. Visser</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral‐Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Geertman, M E" sort="Geertman, M E" uniqKey="Geertman M" first="M. E." last="Geertman">M. E. Geertman</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Dental School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, the Netherlands,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Meijer, H J A" sort="Meijer, H J A" uniqKey="Meijer H" first="H. J. A." last="Meijer">H. J. A. Meijer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral‐Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands,</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Dental School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, the Netherlands,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Raghoebar, G M" sort="Raghoebar, G M" uniqKey="Raghoebar G" first="G. M." last="Raghoebar">G. M. Raghoebar</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral‐Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kwakman, J M" sort="Kwakman, J M" uniqKey="Kwakman J" first="J. M." last="Kwakman">J. M. Kwakman</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Creugers, N H J" sort="Creugers, N H J" uniqKey="Creugers N" first="N. H. J." last="Creugers">N. H. J. Creugers</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Dental School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, the Netherlands,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Van Oort, R P" sort="Van Oort, R P" uniqKey="Van Oort R" first="R. P." last="Van Oort">R. P. Van Oort</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral‐Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:C4EE21A6B43D1AD3BB8A755064C816A305098C2C</idno><date when="2002" year="2002">2002</date><idno type="doi">10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00834.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/C4EE21A6B43D1AD3BB8A755064C816A305098C2C/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">006190</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">006190</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Five years of aftercare of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures</title><author><name sortKey="Visser, A" sort="Visser, A" uniqKey="Visser A" first="A." last="Visser">A. Visser</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral‐Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Geertman, M E" sort="Geertman, M E" uniqKey="Geertman M" first="M. E." last="Geertman">M. E. Geertman</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Dental School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, the Netherlands,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Meijer, H J A" sort="Meijer, H J A" uniqKey="Meijer H" first="H. J. A." last="Meijer">H. J. A. Meijer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral‐Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands,</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Dental School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, the Netherlands,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Raghoebar, G M" sort="Raghoebar, G M" uniqKey="Raghoebar G" first="G. M." last="Raghoebar">G. M. Raghoebar</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral‐Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kwakman, J M" sort="Kwakman, J M" uniqKey="Kwakman J" first="J. M." last="Kwakman">J. M. Kwakman</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Creugers, N H J" sort="Creugers, N H J" uniqKey="Creugers N" first="N. H. J." last="Creugers">N. H. J. Creugers</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Dental School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, the Netherlands,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Van Oort, R P" sort="Van Oort, R P" uniqKey="Van Oort R" first="R. P." last="Van Oort">R. P. Van Oort</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral‐Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands,</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">29</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="113">113</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="120">120</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">8</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Science Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2002-02">2002-02</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>Aftercare</term><term>Blackwell science</term><term>Bone level</term><term>Branemark</term><term>Branemark implant system</term><term>Clinical aspects</term><term>Clinical implant performance</term><term>Clinical implant performance scale</term><term>Clinical trial</term><term>Complete denture</term><term>Conventional dentures</term><term>Denture</term><term>Different implant systems</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous mandible</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Endosseous</term><term>Endosseous implant systems</term><term>Endosseous implants</term><term>Evaluation period</term><term>Groningen</term><term>High number</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant insertion</term><term>Implant loss</term><term>Implant system</term><term>Implant systems</term><term>Implants research</term><term>Insertion</term><term>International journal</term><term>Lower denture</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular dentures</term><term>Mandibular overdentures</term><term>Maxillofacial</term><term>Maxillofacial implants</term><term>Maxillofacial prosthodontics</term><term>Maxillofacial surgery</term><term>Minor complications</term><term>Nijmegen</term><term>Nijmegen group</term><term>Oral implantology</term><term>Oral maxillofacial surgery</term><term>Oral rehabilitation</term><term>Overdenture</term><term>Overdenture vestibulumplasty</term><term>Overdentures</term><term>Prosthetic</term><term>Prosthetic aftercare</term><term>Prosthetic dentistry</term><term>Superstructure</term><term>Surgical</term><term>Surgical aftercare</term><term>Survival rate</term><term>Transmandibular</term><term>Transmandibular implant</term><term>Transmandibular implant group</term><term>Transmandibular implant system</term><term>University hospital groningen</term><term>Upper denture</term><term>Vestibuloplasty</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Aftercare</term><term>Blackwell science</term><term>Bone level</term><term>Branemark</term><term>Branemark implant system</term><term>Clinical aspects</term><term>Clinical implant performance</term><term>Clinical implant performance scale</term><term>Clinical trial</term><term>Complete denture</term><term>Conventional dentures</term><term>Denture</term><term>Different implant systems</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous mandible</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Endosseous</term><term>Endosseous implant systems</term><term>Endosseous implants</term><term>Evaluation period</term><term>Groningen</term><term>High number</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant insertion</term><term>Implant loss</term><term>Implant system</term><term>Implant systems</term><term>Implants research</term><term>Insertion</term><term>International journal</term><term>Lower denture</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular dentures</term><term>Mandibular overdentures</term><term>Maxillofacial</term><term>Maxillofacial implants</term><term>Maxillofacial prosthodontics</term><term>Maxillofacial surgery</term><term>Minor complications</term><term>Nijmegen</term><term>Nijmegen group</term><term>Oral implantology</term><term>Oral maxillofacial surgery</term><term>Oral rehabilitation</term><term>Overdenture</term><term>Overdenture vestibulumplasty</term><term>Overdentures</term><term>Prosthetic</term><term>Prosthetic aftercare</term><term>Prosthetic dentistry</term><term>Superstructure</term><term>Surgical</term><term>Surgical aftercare</term><term>Survival rate</term><term>Transmandibular</term><term>Transmandibular implant</term><term>Transmandibular implant group</term><term>Transmandibular implant system</term><term>University hospital groningen</term><term>Upper denture</term><term>Vestibuloplasty</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">The purpose of this multicentre randomized clinical trial was to analyse surgical and prosthetic aftercare and clinical implant performance of edentulous patients with implant‐retained mandibular overdentures and of patients with conventional dentures, either or not after pre‐prosthetic vestibuloplasty and deepening of the floor of the mouth. The evaluation period was 5 years. The implant systems evaluated were the IMZ implant system, the Brånemark implant system and the Transmandibular Implant system. The centre in Groningen had five groups (n=149) and the centre in Nijmegen had three groups (n=86). The evaluation comprised of surgical and prosthetic aftercare, together with clinical implant performance (CIP). The highest implant loss (29%) is found in the Transmandibular Implant group. All groups had prosthetic revisions and complications according to the CIP‐scale. The majority of the patients in the endosseous implant groups were subject to minor complications. The CIP‐score of the Transmandibular Implant group is significantly higher than the scores of the other groups, because of the high number of lost posts. In 26˙1% of the patients in this group score 4 is given, which means failure of the implant system. From this study it can be concluded that the endosseous implant systems used in this study have less surgical aftercare and a better clinical implant performance than the Transmandibular Implant system and are therefore the systems of choice for the edentulous mandible.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>denture</json:string><json:string>aftercare</json:string><json:string>endosseous</json:string><json:string>transmandibular</json:string><json:string>overdenture</json:string><json:string>overdentures</json:string><json:string>mandibular</json:string><json:string>prosthetic</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial</json:string><json:string>mandible</json:string><json:string>groningen</json:string><json:string>endosseous implants</json:string><json:string>mandibular overdentures</json:string><json:string>implant system</json:string><json:string>complete denture</json:string><json:string>oral rehabilitation</json:string><json:string>branemark</json:string><json:string>nijmegen</json:string><json:string>survival rate</json:string><json:string>blackwell science</json:string><json:string>international journal</json:string><json:string>prosthetic aftercare</json:string><json:string>transmandibular implant system</json:string><json:string>vestibuloplasty</json:string><json:string>branemark implant system</json:string><json:string>implant systems</json:string><json:string>transmandibular implant group</json:string><json:string>lower denture</json:string><json:string>clinical implant performance</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial implants</json:string><json:string>transmandibular implant</json:string><json:string>edentulous</json:string><json:string>minor complications</json:string><json:string>edentulous mandible</json:string><json:string>prosthetic dentistry</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofacial surgery</json:string><json:string>conventional dentures</json:string><json:string>evaluation period</json:string><json:string>surgical aftercare</json:string><json:string>endosseous implant systems</json:string><json:string>clinical implant performance scale</json:string><json:string>implants research</json:string><json:string>insertion</json:string><json:string>superstructure</json:string><json:string>surgical</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial prosthodontics</json:string><json:string>upper denture</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial surgery</json:string><json:string>edentulous patients</json:string><json:string>implant loss</json:string><json:string>implant insertion</json:string><json:string>high number</json:string><json:string>bone level</json:string><json:string>mandibular dentures</json:string><json:string>oral implantology</json:string><json:string>nijmegen group</json:string><json:string>university hospital groningen</json:string><json:string>overdenture vestibulumplasty</json:string><json:string>clinical trial</json:string><json:string>clinical aspects</json:string><json:string>different implant systems</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>A. Visser</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral‐Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands,</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>M. E. Geertman</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Dental School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, the Netherlands,</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>H. J. A. Meijer</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral‐Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands,</json:string><json:string>Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Dental School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, the Netherlands,</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>G. M. Raghoebar</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral‐Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands,</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>J. M. Kwakman</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>N. H. J. Creugers</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Dental School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, the Netherlands,</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>R. P. Van Oort</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral‐Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands,</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>dental implant</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>overdenture</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>edentulous</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>aftercare</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>JOOR834</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-JCNFGXZ5-T</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>The purpose of this multicentre randomized clinical trial was to analyse surgical and prosthetic aftercare and clinical implant performance of edentulous patients with implant‐retained mandibular overdentures and of patients with conventional dentures, either or not after pre‐prosthetic vestibuloplasty and deepening of the floor of the mouth. The evaluation period was 5 years. The implant systems evaluated were the IMZ implant system, the Brånemark implant system and the Transmandibular Implant system. The centre in Groningen had five groups (n=149) and the centre in Nijmegen had three groups (n=86). The evaluation comprised of surgical and prosthetic aftercare, together with clinical implant performance (CIP). The highest implant loss (29%) is found in the Transmandibular Implant group. All groups had prosthetic revisions and complications according to the CIP‐scale. The majority of the patients in the endosseous implant groups were subject to minor complications. The CIP‐score of the Transmandibular Implant group is significantly higher than the scores of the other groups, because of the high number of lost posts. In 26˙1% of the patients in this group score 4 is given, which means failure of the implant system. From this study it can be concluded that the endosseous implant systems used in this study have less surgical aftercare and a better clinical implant performance than the Transmandibular Implant system and are therefore the systems of choice for the edentulous mandible.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8.617</score><pdfWordCount>3929</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>24755</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.2</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>8</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595 x 782 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>224</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1504</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>4</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Five years of aftercare of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures</title><pmid><json:string>11856388</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>29</volume><issue>2</issue><pages><first>113</first><last>120</last><total>8</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2002</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Blackwell Science Ltd</json:string><json:string>University of Groningen</json:string><json:string>University of Nijmegen</json:string><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery</json:string><json:string>Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry</json:string><json:string>University Hospital Groningen, the Netherlands</json:string><json:string>University Hospital Groningen, Groningen</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Postponed</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Groningen</json:string><json:string>Switzerland</json:string><json:string>Germany</json:string><json:string>Mannheim</json:string><json:string>Nijmegen</json:string><json:string>Gothenburg</json:string><json:string>Chicago</json:string><json:string>Sweden</json:string><json:string>Netherlands</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Bosker et al. (1991)</json:string><json:string>Branemark et al., 1985</json:string><json:string>Stoelinga, 1984</json:string><json:string>Versteegh et al., 1995</json:string><json:string>Walton & MacEntee, 1994</json:string><json:string>Hemmings et al., 1994</json:string><json:string>Boerrigter et al. (1997)</json:string><json:string>Barmes, 1990</json:string><json:string>Maxson et al. (1989)</json:string><json:string>Versteegh et al. (1995)</json:string><json:string>Meijer et al. (1999)</json:string><json:string>Naert et al. (1998)</json:string><json:string>Van Steenberghe et al. (1987)</json:string><json:string>Behr et al., 1998</json:string><json:string>Milholland et al., 1973</json:string><json:string>Bosker et al., 1991</json:string><json:string>Mericske-Stern and Zarb (1993)</json:string><json:string>Watson et al., 1997</json:string><json:string>Antczak-Bouckoms & Chalmers, 1988</json:string><json:string>Mericske-Stern et al. (1994)</json:string><json:string>Kirsch & Mentag, 1986</json:string><json:string>Van Waas et al., 1997</json:string><json:string>Jemt et al. (1996)</json:string><json:string>Zielhuis et al., 1990</json:string><json:string>Boerrigter et al., 1997</json:string><json:string>Kwakman et al. (1998)</json:string><json:string>Roynesdal et al. (1998)</json:string><json:string>Geertman et al., 1996</json:string><json:string>Batenburg et al. (1998b)</json:string><json:string>Bosker and Van Dijk (1989)</json:string><json:string>Chao et al., 1995</json:string><json:string>Geertman et al. (1996)</json:string><json:string>Batenburg et al., 1998a</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-JCNFGXZ5-T</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>2002</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2002</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00834.x</json:string></doi><id>C4EE21A6B43D1AD3BB8A755064C816A305098C2C</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C4EE21A6B43D1AD3BB8A755064C816A305098C2C/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C4EE21A6B43D1AD3BB8A755064C816A305098C2C/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/C4EE21A6B43D1AD3BB8A755064C816A305098C2C/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Five years of aftercare of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Science Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2002-02"></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">Five years of aftercare of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures</title><title level="a" type="short">AFTERCARE OF MANDIBULAR DENTURES</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">A. </forename><surname>Visser</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral‐Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands,<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">M. E. </forename><surname>Geertman</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Dental School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, the Netherlands,<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">H. J. A. </forename><surname>Meijer</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral‐Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands,<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation><affiliation>Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Dental School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, the Netherlands,<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">G. M. </forename><surname>Raghoebar</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral‐Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands,<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0004"><persName><forename type="first">J. M. </forename><surname>Kwakman</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0005"><persName><forename type="first">N. H. J. </forename><surname>Creugers</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Dental School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, the Netherlands,<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0006"><persName><forename type="first">R. P. </forename><surname>Van Oort</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral‐Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands,<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">C4EE21A6B43D1AD3BB8A755064C816A305098C2C</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-JCNFGXZ5-T</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00834.x</idno><idno type="unit">JOOR834</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:JOOR.JOOR834.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.2002.29.issue-2</idno><idno type="product">JOOR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">29</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="113">113</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="120">120</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">8</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Science Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2002-02"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p>The purpose of this multicentre randomized clinical trial was to analyse surgical and prosthetic aftercare and clinical implant performance of edentulous patients with implant‐retained mandibular overdentures and of patients with conventional dentures, either or not after pre‐prosthetic vestibuloplasty and deepening of the floor of the mouth. The evaluation period was 5 years. The implant systems evaluated were the IMZ implant system, the Brånemark implant system and the Transmandibular Implant system. The centre in Groningen had five groups (<hi rend="italic">n</hi>=149) and the centre in Nijmegen had three groups (<hi rend="italic">n</hi>=86). The evaluation comprised of surgical and prosthetic aftercare, together with clinical implant performance (CIP). The highest implant loss (29%) is found in the Transmandibular Implant group. All groups had prosthetic revisions and complications according to the CIP‐scale. The majority of the patients in the endosseous implant groups were subject to minor complications. The CIP‐score of the Transmandibular Implant group is significantly higher than the scores of the other groups, because of the high number of lost posts. In 26˙1% of the patients in this group score 4 is given, which means failure of the implant system. From this study it can be concluded that the endosseous implant systems used in this study have less surgical aftercare and a better clinical implant performance than the Transmandibular Implant system and are therefore the systems of choice for the edentulous mandible.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">dental implant</term><term xml:id="k2">overdenture</term><term xml:id="k3">edentulous</term><term xml:id="k4">aftercare</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original Articles</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/C4EE21A6B43D1AD3BB8A755064C816A305098C2C/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></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="02002"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/jor.2002.29.issue-2</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="29">29</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="2">2</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2002-02">February 2002</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="0011300" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00834.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="JOOR834"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="8"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2002-01-25"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2002-01-25"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:FullText result:FullText" 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="113">113</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="120">120</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>
Dr Henny J. A. Meijer
Department of Oral‐Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, PO Box 30‐001, 9700 RB Groningen, the Netherlands. E‐mail: <email>h.j.a.mejer@kchir.azg.nl</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:JOOR.JOOR834.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="tableTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="30"></count><count type="linksPubMed" number="24"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="1"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Five years of aftercare of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures</title><title type="shortAuthors">A. VISSER et al.</title><title type="short">AFTERCARE OF MANDIBULAR DENTURES</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>A. </givenNames><familyName>Visser</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>M. E. </givenNames><familyName>Geertman</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a1 #a2"><personName><givenNames>H. J. A. </givenNames><familyName>Meijer</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>G. M. </givenNames><familyName>Raghoebar</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr5" affiliationRef="#a3"><personName><givenNames>J. M. </givenNames><familyName>Kwakman</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr6" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>N. H. J. </givenNames><familyName>Creugers</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr7" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>R. P. </givenNames><familyName>Van Oort</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="NL"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Oral‐Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands,</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="NL"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Dental School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, the Netherlands,</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a3" countryCode="NL"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">dental implant</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">overdenture</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">edentulous</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">aftercare</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p>The purpose of this multicentre randomized clinical trial was to analyse surgical and prosthetic aftercare and clinical implant performance of edentulous patients with implant‐retained mandibular overdentures and of patients with conventional dentures, either or not after pre‐prosthetic vestibuloplasty and deepening of the floor of the mouth. The evaluation period was 5 years. The implant systems evaluated were the IMZ implant system, the Brånemark implant system and the Transmandibular Implant system. The centre in Groningen had five groups (<i>n</i>=149) and the centre in Nijmegen had three groups (<i>n</i>=86). The evaluation comprised of surgical and prosthetic aftercare, together with clinical implant performance (CIP). The highest implant loss (29%) is found in the Transmandibular Implant group. All groups had prosthetic revisions and complications according to the CIP‐scale. The majority of the patients in the endosseous implant groups were subject to minor complications. The CIP‐score of the Transmandibular Implant group is significantly higher than the scores of the other groups, because of the high number of lost posts. In 26˙1% of the patients in this group score 4 is given, which means failure of the implant system. From this study it can be concluded that the endosseous implant systems used in this study have less surgical aftercare and a better clinical implant performance than the Transmandibular Implant system and are therefore the systems of choice for the edentulous mandible.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Five years of aftercare of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>AFTERCARE OF MANDIBULAR DENTURES</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Five years of aftercare of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">A.</namePart><namePart type="family">Visser</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral‐Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands,</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">M. E.</namePart><namePart type="family">Geertman</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Dental School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, the Netherlands,</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">H. J. A.</namePart><namePart type="family">Meijer</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral‐Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands,</affiliation><affiliation>Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Dental School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, the Netherlands,</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">G. M.</namePart><namePart type="family">Raghoebar</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral‐Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands,</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">J. M.</namePart><namePart type="family">Kwakman</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">N. H. J.</namePart><namePart type="family">Creugers</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Dental School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, the Netherlands,</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">R. P.</namePart><namePart type="family">Van Oort</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral‐Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, 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>Blackwell Science Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2002-02</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2002</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="tables">0</extent><extent unit="references">30</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">1</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">The purpose of this multicentre randomized clinical trial was to analyse surgical and prosthetic aftercare and clinical implant performance of edentulous patients with implant‐retained mandibular overdentures and of patients with conventional dentures, either or not after pre‐prosthetic vestibuloplasty and deepening of the floor of the mouth. The evaluation period was 5 years. The implant systems evaluated were the IMZ implant system, the Brånemark implant system and the Transmandibular Implant system. The centre in Groningen had five groups (n=149) and the centre in Nijmegen had three groups (n=86). The evaluation comprised of surgical and prosthetic aftercare, together with clinical implant performance (CIP). The highest implant loss (29%) is found in the Transmandibular Implant group. All groups had prosthetic revisions and complications according to the CIP‐scale. The majority of the patients in the endosseous implant groups were subject to minor complications. The CIP‐score of the Transmandibular Implant group is significantly higher than the scores of the other groups, because of the high number of lost posts. In 26˙1% of the patients in this group score 4 is given, which means failure of the implant system. From this study it can be concluded that the endosseous implant systems used in this study have less surgical aftercare and a better clinical implant performance than the Transmandibular Implant system and are therefore the systems of choice for the edentulous mandible.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>dental implant</topic><topic>overdenture</topic><topic>edentulous</topic><topic>aftercare</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><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>2002</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>29</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>113</start><end>120</end><total>8</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">C4EE21A6B43D1AD3BB8A755064C816A305098C2C</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-JCNFGXZ5-T</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00834.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">JOOR834</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/C4EE21A6B43D1AD3BB8A755064C816A305098C2C/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 006190 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 006190 | 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:C4EE21A6B43D1AD3BB8A755064C816A305098C2C
|texte= Five years of aftercare of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |