Patient Satisfaction with Maxillary 3‐Implant Overdentures Using Different Attachment Systems Opposing Mandibular 2‐Implant Overdentures
Identifieur interne : 007545 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 007544; suivant : 007546Patient Satisfaction with Maxillary 3‐Implant Overdentures Using Different Attachment Systems Opposing Mandibular 2‐Implant Overdentures
Auteurs : Mohammed I. Al-Zubeidi ; Nabeel H. M. Alsabeeha ; W. Murray Thomson ; Alan G. T. PayneSource :
- Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research [ 1523-0899 ] ; 2012-05.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Baseline, Clin, Clinical implant dentistry, Conventional maxillary dentures, Dent, Dentistry, Denture, Edentulous, Edentulous maxilla, Edentulous patients, Feine, First year, Full palatal coverage, Functional limitation, General satisfaction, Gold matrices, Implant, Implant bridges, Implant overdentures, John walsh research institute, Mandibular, Mandibular implant overdentures, Mandibular overdenture, Mandibular overdentures, Matrix, Maxilla, Maxillary, Maxillary implant overdentures, Maxillary implants, Maxillary overdenture, Maxillary overdentures, Ohip, Oral implantology research group, Oral maxillofac implants, Overdenture, Overdentures, Palatal, Palatal coverage, Participant, Patient outcomes, Patient satisfaction, Physical disability, Prosthesis, Prosthet, Prosthet dent, Prosthodontic, Prosthodontic design, Psychological disability, Psychological discomfort, Second year, Social disability, Southern implants, Splinted, Splinted group, Treatment outcomes, Unsplinted, Unsplinted group.
- Teeft :
- Baseline, Clin, Clinical implant dentistry, Conventional maxillary dentures, Dent, Dentistry, Denture, Edentulous, Edentulous maxilla, Edentulous patients, Feine, First year, Full palatal coverage, Functional limitation, General satisfaction, Gold matrices, Implant, Implant bridges, Implant overdentures, John walsh research institute, Mandibular, Mandibular implant overdentures, Mandibular overdenture, Mandibular overdentures, Matrix, Maxilla, Maxillary, Maxillary implant overdentures, Maxillary implants, Maxillary overdenture, Maxillary overdentures, Ohip, Oral implantology research group, Oral maxillofac implants, Overdenture, Overdentures, Palatal, Palatal coverage, Participant, Patient outcomes, Patient satisfaction, Physical disability, Prosthesis, Prosthet, Prosthet dent, Prosthodontic, Prosthodontic design, Psychological disability, Psychological discomfort, Second year, Social disability, Southern implants, Splinted, Splinted group, Treatment outcomes, Unsplinted, Unsplinted group.
Abstract
Background: Patient‐based outcomes with maxillary overdentures on a minimum number of implants, opposing mandibular 2‐implant overdentures are not evident in the literature.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00332.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:ECC55DF19602B41CBDD7D3AF65A27B5C254786F6Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Patient Satisfaction with Maxillary 3‐Implant Overdentures Using Different Attachment Systems Opposing Mandibular 2‐Implant Overdentures</title><author><name sortKey="Al Ubeidi, Mohammed I" sort="Al Ubeidi, Mohammed I" uniqKey="Al Ubeidi M" first="Mohammed I." last="Al-Zubeidi">Mohammed I. Al-Zubeidi</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Prosthodontist, Private Practice, Melbourne, Australia & Graduate Student of Prosthodontics, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Alsabeeha, Nabeel H M" sort="Alsabeeha, Nabeel H M" uniqKey="Alsabeeha N" first="Nabeel H. M." last="Alsabeeha">Nabeel H. M. Alsabeeha</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Prosthodontist, Ministry of Health, United Arab Emirates & PhD student, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Thomson, W Murray" sort="Thomson, W Murray" uniqKey="Thomson W" first="W. Murray" last="Thomson">W. Murray Thomson</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Professor of Public Dental Health and Epidemiology, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Payne, Alan G T" sort="Payne, Alan G T" uniqKey="Payne A" first="Alan G. T." last="Payne">Alan G. T. Payne</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>associate professor of Prosthodontics, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: payne@actrix.gen.nz</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:ECC55DF19602B41CBDD7D3AF65A27B5C254786F6</idno><date when="2012" year="2012">2012</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00332.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/ECC55DF19602B41CBDD7D3AF65A27B5C254786F6/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">007545</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">007545</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Patient Satisfaction with Maxillary 3‐Implant Overdentures Using Different Attachment Systems Opposing Mandibular 2‐Implant Overdentures</title><author><name sortKey="Al Ubeidi, Mohammed I" sort="Al Ubeidi, Mohammed I" uniqKey="Al Ubeidi M" first="Mohammed I." last="Al-Zubeidi">Mohammed I. Al-Zubeidi</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Prosthodontist, Private Practice, Melbourne, Australia & Graduate Student of Prosthodontics, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Alsabeeha, Nabeel H M" sort="Alsabeeha, Nabeel H M" uniqKey="Alsabeeha N" first="Nabeel H. M." last="Alsabeeha">Nabeel H. M. Alsabeeha</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Prosthodontist, Ministry of Health, United Arab Emirates & PhD student, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Thomson, W Murray" sort="Thomson, W Murray" uniqKey="Thomson W" first="W. Murray" last="Thomson">W. Murray Thomson</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Professor of Public Dental Health and Epidemiology, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Payne, Alan G T" sort="Payne, Alan G T" uniqKey="Payne A" first="Alan G. T." last="Payne">Alan G. T. Payne</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>associate professor of Prosthodontics, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: payne@actrix.gen.nz</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title><title level="j" type="sub">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Prosthodontic Supplement 2012: Contemporary Insight Into Implant Prosthodontics</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY RELATED RESEARCH</title><idno type="ISSN">1523-0899</idno><idno type="eISSN">1708-8208</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">14</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="e11">e11</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="e19">e19</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">9</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2012-05">2012-05</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1523-0899</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1523-0899</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Baseline</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clinical implant dentistry</term><term>Conventional maxillary dentures</term><term>Dent</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>Denture</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous maxilla</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Feine</term><term>First year</term><term>Full palatal coverage</term><term>Functional limitation</term><term>General satisfaction</term><term>Gold matrices</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant bridges</term><term>Implant overdentures</term><term>John walsh research institute</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular implant overdentures</term><term>Mandibular overdenture</term><term>Mandibular overdentures</term><term>Matrix</term><term>Maxilla</term><term>Maxillary</term><term>Maxillary implant overdentures</term><term>Maxillary implants</term><term>Maxillary overdenture</term><term>Maxillary overdentures</term><term>Ohip</term><term>Oral implantology research group</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Overdenture</term><term>Overdentures</term><term>Palatal</term><term>Palatal coverage</term><term>Participant</term><term>Patient outcomes</term><term>Patient satisfaction</term><term>Physical disability</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthet</term><term>Prosthet dent</term><term>Prosthodontic</term><term>Prosthodontic design</term><term>Psychological disability</term><term>Psychological discomfort</term><term>Second year</term><term>Social disability</term><term>Southern implants</term><term>Splinted</term><term>Splinted group</term><term>Treatment outcomes</term><term>Unsplinted</term><term>Unsplinted group</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Baseline</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clinical implant dentistry</term><term>Conventional maxillary dentures</term><term>Dent</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>Denture</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous maxilla</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Feine</term><term>First year</term><term>Full palatal coverage</term><term>Functional limitation</term><term>General satisfaction</term><term>Gold matrices</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant bridges</term><term>Implant overdentures</term><term>John walsh research institute</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular implant overdentures</term><term>Mandibular overdenture</term><term>Mandibular overdentures</term><term>Matrix</term><term>Maxilla</term><term>Maxillary</term><term>Maxillary implant overdentures</term><term>Maxillary implants</term><term>Maxillary overdenture</term><term>Maxillary overdentures</term><term>Ohip</term><term>Oral implantology research group</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Overdenture</term><term>Overdentures</term><term>Palatal</term><term>Palatal coverage</term><term>Participant</term><term>Patient outcomes</term><term>Patient satisfaction</term><term>Physical disability</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthet</term><term>Prosthet dent</term><term>Prosthodontic</term><term>Prosthodontic design</term><term>Psychological disability</term><term>Psychological discomfort</term><term>Second year</term><term>Social disability</term><term>Southern implants</term><term>Splinted</term><term>Splinted group</term><term>Treatment outcomes</term><term>Unsplinted</term><term>Unsplinted group</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Background: Patient‐based outcomes with maxillary overdentures on a minimum number of implants, opposing mandibular 2‐implant overdentures are not evident in the literature.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>maxillary</json:string><json:string>overdentures</json:string><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>maxillary overdentures</json:string><json:string>mandibular</json:string><json:string>palatal</json:string><json:string>prosthodontic</json:string><json:string>overdenture</json:string><json:string>palatal coverage</json:string><json:string>denture</json:string><json:string>patient satisfaction</json:string><json:string>splinted</json:string><json:string>unsplinted</json:string><json:string>mandibular overdentures</json:string><json:string>maxillary implant overdentures</json:string><json:string>second year</json:string><json:string>prosthodontic design</json:string><json:string>prosthesis</json:string><json:string>baseline</json:string><json:string>conventional maxillary dentures</json:string><json:string>maxilla</json:string><json:string>prosthet</json:string><json:string>feine</json:string><json:string>prosthet dent</json:string><json:string>ohip</json:string><json:string>clin</json:string><json:string>edentulous</json:string><json:string>edentulous patients</json:string><json:string>oral implantology research group</json:string><json:string>implant bridges</json:string><json:string>unsplinted group</json:string><json:string>psychological discomfort</json:string><json:string>john walsh research institute</json:string><json:string>dentistry</json:string><json:string>participant</json:string><json:string>general satisfaction</json:string><json:string>clinical implant dentistry</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofac implants</json:string><json:string>maxillary overdenture</json:string><json:string>southern implants</json:string><json:string>functional limitation</json:string><json:string>social disability</json:string><json:string>dent</json:string><json:string>matrix</json:string><json:string>treatment outcomes</json:string><json:string>gold matrices</json:string><json:string>first year</json:string><json:string>edentulous maxilla</json:string><json:string>maxillary implants</json:string><json:string>implant overdentures</json:string><json:string>splinted group</json:string><json:string>full palatal coverage</json:string><json:string>patient outcomes</json:string><json:string>mandibular implant overdentures</json:string><json:string>psychological disability</json:string><json:string>physical disability</json:string><json:string>mandibular overdenture</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Mohammed I. Al‐Zubeidi BDS, MDS</name><affiliations><json:string>Prosthodontist, Private Practice, Melbourne, Australia & Graduate Student of Prosthodontics, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Nabeel H.M. Alsabeeha DMD, MSc, MFDS RCPS, PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>Prosthodontist, Ministry of Health, United Arab Emirates & PhD student, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>W. Murray Thomson BDS, MComDent, MA, PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>Professor of Public Dental Health and Epidemiology, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Alan G.T. Payne BDS, MDent, DDSc FCD (SA)</name><affiliations><json:string>associate professor of Prosthodontics, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand</json:string><json:string>E-mail: payne@actrix.gen.nz</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>attachment systems</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>maxillary implant overdentures</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>patient satisfaction</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CID332</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-46C547BJ-9</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Background: Patient‐based outcomes with maxillary overdentures on a minimum number of implants, opposing mandibular 2‐implant overdentures are not evident in the literature.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>6.369</score><pdfWordCount>4105</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>29368</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>9</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>585 x 783 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>22</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>173</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>3</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Patient Satisfaction with Maxillary 3‐Implant Overdentures Using Different Attachment Systems Opposing Mandibular 2‐Implant Overdentures</title><pmid><json:string>21414137</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>1523-0899</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1708-8208</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>CID</json:string></publisherId><volume>14</volume><pages><first>e11</first><last>e19</last><total>9</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2012</json:string><json:string>1</json:string><json:string>2</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand Review</json:string><json:string>ITI Research Foundation and Institute</json:string><json:string>Southern Implants Ltd.</json:string><json:string>Oral Implantology Research Group, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, New Zealand</json:string><json:string>Related Research, Volume</json:string><json:string>Ministry of Health, United</json:string><json:string>University of British Colombia, Canada and Professor</json:string><json:string>Lower South Ethics Committee, New Zealand</json:string><json:string>Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand</json:string><json:string>Wiley Periodicals, Inc</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Kaptein</json:string><json:string>G.T. Payne</json:string><json:string>Sample</json:string><json:string>W. Murray</json:string><json:string>Satisfaction</json:string><json:string>H.M. Alsabeeha</json:string><json:string>Heydecke</json:string><json:string>Mohammed I. Al-Zubeidi</json:string><json:string>Data</json:string><json:string>Joanne Walton</json:string><json:string>Albuquerque</json:string><json:string>Jocelyne Feine</json:string><json:string>Raghoebar</json:string><json:string>Alan</json:string><json:string>Awad</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Switzerland</json:string><json:string>Antwerp</json:string><json:string>Australia</json:string><json:string>Canada</json:string><json:string>South Africa</json:string><json:string>New Zealand</json:string><json:string>Sweden</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-46C547BJ-9</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><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - Oral Surgery</json:string></scopus></categories><publicationDate>2012</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2012</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00332.x</json:string></doi><id>ECC55DF19602B41CBDD7D3AF65A27B5C254786F6</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/ECC55DF19602B41CBDD7D3AF65A27B5C254786F6/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/ECC55DF19602B41CBDD7D3AF65A27B5C254786F6/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/ECC55DF19602B41CBDD7D3AF65A27B5C254786F6/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Patient Satisfaction with Maxillary 3‐Implant Overdentures Using Different Attachment Systems Opposing Mandibular 2‐Implant Overdentures</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><licence>© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</licence></availability><date type="published" when="2012-05"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Patient Satisfaction with Maxillary 3‐Implant Overdentures Using Different Attachment Systems Opposing Mandibular 2‐Implant Overdentures</title><title level="a" type="short">Patient Satisfaction with Maxillary 3‐Implant Overdentures</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Mohammed I.</forename><surname>Al‐Zubeidi</surname><roleName type="degree">BDS, MDS</roleName></persName><affiliation>Prosthodontist, Private Practice, Melbourne, Australia & Graduate Student of Prosthodontics, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Nabeel H.M.</forename><surname>Alsabeeha</surname><roleName type="degree">DMD, MSc, MFDS RCPS, PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>Prosthodontist, Ministry of Health, United Arab Emirates & PhD student, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">W. Murray</forename><surname>Thomson</surname><roleName type="degree">BDS, MComDent, MA, PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>Professor of Public Dental Health and Epidemiology, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;<address><country key="NZ"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003" role="corresp"><persName><forename type="first">Alan G.T.</forename><surname>Payne</surname><roleName type="degree">BDS, MDent, DDSc FCD (SA)</roleName></persName><affiliation>associate professor of Prosthodontics, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand<address><country key="NZ"></country></address></affiliation><affiliation>Dr. Alan G.T. Payne, Dental Services, Whangarei, New Zealand; e‐mail: payne@actrix.gen.nz</affiliation></author><idno type="istex">ECC55DF19602B41CBDD7D3AF65A27B5C254786F6</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-46C547BJ-9</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00332.x</idno><idno type="unit">CID332</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CID.CID332.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title><title level="j" type="sub">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Prosthodontic Supplement 2012: Contemporary Insight Into Implant Prosthodontics</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY RELATED RESEARCH</title><idno type="pISSN">1523-0899</idno><idno type="eISSN">1708-8208</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/cid.2012.14.issue-s1</idno><idno type="product">CID</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">14</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="e11">e11</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="e19">e19</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">9</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2012-05"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><head>ABSTRACT</head><p><hi rend="bold">Background:</hi> Patient‐based outcomes with maxillary overdentures on a minimum number of implants, opposing mandibular 2‐implant overdentures are not evident in the literature.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Purpose:</hi> To evaluate patient's satisfaction with maxillary 3‐implant overdentures, opposing mandibular 2‐implant overdentures, using two different attachment systems over the first 2 years of service.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Materials and Methods:</hi> Forty participants wearing mandibular 2‐implant overdentures for 3 years were randomly allocated to one of two similar implant system groups to receive maxillary 3‐implant overdentures. Twenty participants were allocated to splinted and unsplinted attachment system treatment groups for each system. Patient satisfaction with pre‐treatment complete maxillary dentures, with maxillary 3‐implant overdentures at baseline and annually for 2 years, was measured using visual analogue scale questionnaires and the oral health impact profiles. Palatal coverage of the maxillary overdentures was reduced at the first annual recall.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Results:</hi> Data showed significant improvement in pain reduction, comfort, stability, and function variables of the visual analogue scale after treatment. Analysis by prosthodontic design using visual analogue scale showed no significant difference. The total oral health impact profile‐14 scores after treatment for all participants, regardless of prosthodontic design, were significantly lower (more satisfied). The overall oral health impact profile‐20E score at baseline was significantly higher (more satisfied) compared with pre‐treatment conventional maxillary dentures. No significant changes were observed in the first or second years compared with baseline results. Twenty‐two participants (84.6%) preferred reduced palatal coverage, regardless of prosthodontic design, after 1 year. Twenty participants (76.9%) still preferred reduced palatal coverage at the end of the second year.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Conclusions:</hi> The provision of maxillary 3‐implant overdentures to oppose mandibular 2‐implant overdentures significantly improve levels of patient satisfaction compared with conventional maxillary dentures.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">attachment systems</term><term xml:id="k2">maxillary implant overdentures</term><term xml:id="k3">patient satisfaction</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Prosthodontic Supplement 2012: Contemporary Insight Into Implant Prosthodontics</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/ECC55DF19602B41CBDD7D3AF65A27B5C254786F6/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 Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</doi><issn type="print">1523-0899</issn><issn type="electronic">1708-8208</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="CID"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY RELATED RESEARCH">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="05001"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/cid.2012.14.issue-s1</doi><titleGroup><title type="specialIssueTitle">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Prosthodontic Supplement 2012: Contemporary Insight Into Implant Prosthodontics</title></titleGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="14">14</numbering><numbering type="supplement">s1</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2012-05">May 2012</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="3" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00332.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CID332"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="9"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Prosthodontic Supplement 2012: Contemporary Insight Into Implant Prosthodontics</title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</copyright><eventGroup><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:3.1.6 mode:FullText" date="2012-08-21"></event><event type="publishedOnlineEarlyUnpaginated" date="2011-03-17"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2012-05-10"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="2011-03-17"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-15"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.3.4 mode:FullText" date="2015-02-25"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst">e11</numbering><numbering type="pageLast">e19</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Dr. Alan G.T. Payne, Dental Services, Whangarei, New Zealand; e‐mail: <email>payne@actrix.gen.nz</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CID.CID332.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="2"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="3"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="29"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="4881"></count><count type="linksPubMed" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Patient Satisfaction with Maxillary 3‐Implant Overdentures Using Different Attachment Systems Opposing Mandibular 2‐Implant Overdentures</title><title type="shortAuthors">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, Volume *, Number *, 2011</title><title type="short">Patient Satisfaction with Maxillary 3‐Implant Overdentures</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Mohammed I.</givenNames><familyName>Al‐Zubeidi</familyName><degrees>BDS, MDS</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Nabeel H.M.</givenNames><familyName>Alsabeeha</familyName><degrees>DMD, MSc, MFDS RCPS, PhD</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a3"><personName><givenNames>W. Murray</givenNames><familyName>Thomson</familyName><degrees>BDS, MComDent, MA, PhD</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a4" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>Alan G.T.</givenNames><familyName>Payne</familyName><degrees>BDS, MDent, DDSc FCD (SA)</degrees></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1"><unparsedAffiliation>Prosthodontist, Private Practice, Melbourne, Australia & Graduate Student of Prosthodontics, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2"><unparsedAffiliation>Prosthodontist, Ministry of Health, United Arab Emirates & PhD student, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a3" countryCode="NZ"><unparsedAffiliation>Professor of Public Dental Health and Epidemiology, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a4" countryCode="NZ"><unparsedAffiliation>associate professor of Prosthodontics, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">attachment systems</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">maxillary implant overdentures</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">patient satisfaction</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">ABSTRACT</title><p><b>Background:</b> Patient‐based outcomes with maxillary overdentures on a minimum number of implants, opposing mandibular 2‐implant overdentures are not evident in the literature.</p><p><b>Purpose:</b> To evaluate patient's satisfaction with maxillary 3‐implant overdentures, opposing mandibular 2‐implant overdentures, using two different attachment systems over the first 2 years of service.</p><p><b>Materials and Methods:</b> Forty participants wearing mandibular 2‐implant overdentures for 3 years were randomly allocated to one of two similar implant system groups to receive maxillary 3‐implant overdentures. Twenty participants were allocated to splinted and unsplinted attachment system treatment groups for each system. Patient satisfaction with pre‐treatment complete maxillary dentures, with maxillary 3‐implant overdentures at baseline and annually for 2 years, was measured using visual analogue scale questionnaires and the oral health impact profiles. Palatal coverage of the maxillary overdentures was reduced at the first annual recall.</p><p><b>Results:</b> Data showed significant improvement in pain reduction, comfort, stability, and function variables of the visual analogue scale after treatment. Analysis by prosthodontic design using visual analogue scale showed no significant difference. The total oral health impact profile‐14 scores after treatment for all participants, regardless of prosthodontic design, were significantly lower (more satisfied). The overall oral health impact profile‐20E score at baseline was significantly higher (more satisfied) compared with pre‐treatment conventional maxillary dentures. No significant changes were observed in the first or second years compared with baseline results. Twenty‐two participants (84.6%) preferred reduced palatal coverage, regardless of prosthodontic design, after 1 year. Twenty participants (76.9%) still preferred reduced palatal coverage at the end of the second year.</p><p><b>Conclusions:</b> The provision of maxillary 3‐implant overdentures to oppose mandibular 2‐implant overdentures significantly improve levels of patient satisfaction compared with conventional maxillary dentures.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Patient Satisfaction with Maxillary 3‐Implant Overdentures Using Different Attachment Systems Opposing Mandibular 2‐Implant Overdentures</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Patient Satisfaction with Maxillary 3‐Implant Overdentures</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Patient Satisfaction with Maxillary 3‐Implant Overdentures Using Different Attachment Systems Opposing Mandibular 2‐Implant Overdentures</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Mohammed I.</namePart><namePart type="family">Al‐Zubeidi</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">BDS, MDS</namePart><affiliation>Prosthodontist, Private Practice, Melbourne, Australia & Graduate Student of Prosthodontics, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Nabeel H.M.</namePart><namePart type="family">Alsabeeha</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DMD, MSc, MFDS RCPS, PhD</namePart><affiliation>Prosthodontist, Ministry of Health, United Arab Emirates & PhD student, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">W. Murray</namePart><namePart type="family">Thomson</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">BDS, MComDent, MA, PhD</namePart><affiliation>Professor of Public Dental Health and Epidemiology, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Alan G.T.</namePart><namePart type="family">Payne</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">BDS, MDent, DDSc FCD (SA)</namePart><affiliation>associate professor of Prosthodontics, Oral Implantology Research Group, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: payne@actrix.gen.nz</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 Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2012-05</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2012</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">2</extent><extent unit="tables">3</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">29</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">0</extent><extent unit="words">4881</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Background: Patient‐based outcomes with maxillary overdentures on a minimum number of implants, opposing mandibular 2‐implant overdentures are not evident in the literature.</abstract><abstract>Purpose: To evaluate patient's satisfaction with maxillary 3‐implant overdentures, opposing mandibular 2‐implant overdentures, using two different attachment systems over the first 2 years of service.</abstract><abstract>Materials and Methods: Forty participants wearing mandibular 2‐implant overdentures for 3 years were randomly allocated to one of two similar implant system groups to receive maxillary 3‐implant overdentures. Twenty participants were allocated to splinted and unsplinted attachment system treatment groups for each system. Patient satisfaction with pre‐treatment complete maxillary dentures, with maxillary 3‐implant overdentures at baseline and annually for 2 years, was measured using visual analogue scale questionnaires and the oral health impact profiles. Palatal coverage of the maxillary overdentures was reduced at the first annual recall.</abstract><abstract>Results: Data showed significant improvement in pain reduction, comfort, stability, and function variables of the visual analogue scale after treatment. Analysis by prosthodontic design using visual analogue scale showed no significant difference. The total oral health impact profile‐14 scores after treatment for all participants, regardless of prosthodontic design, were significantly lower (more satisfied). The overall oral health impact profile‐20E score at baseline was significantly higher (more satisfied) compared with pre‐treatment conventional maxillary dentures. No significant changes were observed in the first or second years compared with baseline results. Twenty‐two participants (84.6%) preferred reduced palatal coverage, regardless of prosthodontic design, after 1 year. Twenty participants (76.9%) still preferred reduced palatal coverage at the end of the second year.</abstract><abstract>Conclusions: The provision of maxillary 3‐implant overdentures to oppose mandibular 2‐implant overdentures significantly improve levels of patient satisfaction compared with conventional maxillary dentures.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>attachment systems</topic><topic>maxillary implant overdentures</topic><topic>patient satisfaction</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related 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">1523-0899</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1708-8208</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">CID</identifier><part><date>2012</date><detail type="title"><title>Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Prosthodontic Supplement 2012: Contemporary Insight Into Implant Prosthodontics</title></detail><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>14</number></detail><detail type="supplement"><caption>Suppl. no.</caption><number>s1</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>e11</start><end>e19</end><total>9</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">ECC55DF19602B41CBDD7D3AF65A27B5C254786F6</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-46C547BJ-9</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00332.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CID332</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</accessCondition><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 Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/ECC55DF19602B41CBDD7D3AF65A27B5C254786F6/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 007545 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 007545 | 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:ECC55DF19602B41CBDD7D3AF65A27B5C254786F6
|texte= Patient Satisfaction with Maxillary 3‐Implant Overdentures Using Different Attachment Systems Opposing Mandibular 2‐Implant Overdentures
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |