Comparison of implant supported mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures on quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.
Identifieur interne : 006352 ( Ncbi/Merge ); précédent : 006351; suivant : 006353Comparison of implant supported mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures on quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.
Auteurs : G. Sivaramakrishnan [Fidji] ; K. Sridharan [Fidji]Source :
- Australian dental journal [ 1834-7819 ] ; 2016.
Descripteurs français
- KwdFr :
- MESH :
- psychologie : Mâchoire édentée.
- rééducation et réadaptation : Mâchoire édentée.
- Humains, Prothèse dentaire complète inférieure, Prothèse dentaire implanto-portée, Qualité de vie, Résultat thérapeutique.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- MESH :
- psychology : Jaw, Edentulous.
- rehabilitation : Jaw, Edentulous.
- Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported, Denture, Complete, Lower, Humans, Quality of Life, Treatment Outcome.
Abstract
Conventional complete dentures and implant supported overdentures are commonly used by dentists to treat completely edentulous mandibular arches. There have been problems associated with retention and stability while treating completely edentulous mandibular arches compared to maxillary arches. Many factors have been attributed to this, primarily focusing on the decreased area available for support and increased resorption. Implant supported overdentures have increased the treatment options for resorbed ridges, especially the mandible. However, no reports have proved the superiority of one treatment option over the other, especially in terms of patient-centric outcome measures such as the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP). Hence, this meta-analysis was conducted.
DOI: 10.1111/adj.12416
PubMed: 26836981
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
- to stream PubMed, to step Corpus: 000054
- to stream PubMed, to step Curation: 000054
- to stream PubMed, to step Checkpoint: 000054
Links to Exploration step
pubmed:26836981Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Comparison of implant supported mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures on quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.</title><author><name sortKey="Sivaramakrishnan, G" sort="Sivaramakrishnan, G" uniqKey="Sivaramakrishnan G" first="G" last="Sivaramakrishnan">G. Sivaramakrishnan</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><nlm:affiliation>Department of Oral Health, Fiji National University, Suva, Fiji.</nlm:affiliation><country xml:lang="fr">Fidji</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Oral Health, Fiji National University, Suva</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>Suva</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Sridharan, K" sort="Sridharan, K" uniqKey="Sridharan K" first="K" last="Sridharan">K. Sridharan</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><nlm:affiliation>Department of Health Sciences, Fiji National University, Suva, Fiji.</nlm:affiliation><country xml:lang="fr">Fidji</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Health Sciences, Fiji National University, Suva</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>Suva</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno><date when="2016">2016</date><idno type="RBID">pubmed:26836981</idno><idno type="pmid">26836981</idno><idno type="doi">10.1111/adj.12416</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Corpus">000054</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">000054</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Curation">000054</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Curation">000054</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Checkpoint">000054</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Checkpoint" wicri:step="PubMed">000054</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Ncbi/Merge">006352</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">Comparison of implant supported mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures on quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.</title><author><name sortKey="Sivaramakrishnan, G" sort="Sivaramakrishnan, G" uniqKey="Sivaramakrishnan G" first="G" last="Sivaramakrishnan">G. Sivaramakrishnan</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><nlm:affiliation>Department of Oral Health, Fiji National University, Suva, Fiji.</nlm:affiliation><country xml:lang="fr">Fidji</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Oral Health, Fiji National University, Suva</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>Suva</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Sridharan, K" sort="Sridharan, K" uniqKey="Sridharan K" first="K" last="Sridharan">K. Sridharan</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><nlm:affiliation>Department of Health Sciences, Fiji National University, Suva, Fiji.</nlm:affiliation><country xml:lang="fr">Fidji</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Health Sciences, Fiji National University, Suva</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>Suva</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author></analytic><series><title level="j">Australian dental journal</title><idno type="eISSN">1834-7819</idno><imprint><date when="2016" type="published">2016</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</term><term>Denture, Complete, Lower</term><term>Humans</term><term>Jaw, Edentulous (psychology)</term><term>Jaw, Edentulous (rehabilitation)</term><term>Quality of Life</term><term>Treatment Outcome</term></keywords><keywords scheme="KwdFr" xml:lang="fr"><term>Humains</term><term>Mâchoire édentée (psychologie)</term><term>Mâchoire édentée (rééducation et réadaptation)</term><term>Prothèse dentaire complète inférieure</term><term>Prothèse dentaire implanto-portée</term><term>Qualité de vie</term><term>Résultat thérapeutique</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="psychologie" xml:lang="fr"><term>Mâchoire édentée</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="psychology" xml:lang="en"><term>Jaw, Edentulous</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="rehabilitation" xml:lang="en"><term>Jaw, Edentulous</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="rééducation et réadaptation" xml:lang="fr"><term>Mâchoire édentée</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="en"><term>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</term><term>Denture, Complete, Lower</term><term>Humans</term><term>Quality of Life</term><term>Treatment Outcome</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="fr"><term>Humains</term><term>Prothèse dentaire complète inférieure</term><term>Prothèse dentaire implanto-portée</term><term>Qualité de vie</term><term>Résultat thérapeutique</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Conventional complete dentures and implant supported overdentures are commonly used by dentists to treat completely edentulous mandibular arches. There have been problems associated with retention and stability while treating completely edentulous mandibular arches compared to maxillary arches. Many factors have been attributed to this, primarily focusing on the decreased area available for support and increased resorption. Implant supported overdentures have increased the treatment options for resorbed ridges, especially the mandible. However, no reports have proved the superiority of one treatment option over the other, especially in terms of patient-centric outcome measures such as the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP). Hence, this meta-analysis was conducted.</div></front></TEI><pubmed><MedlineCitation Status="MEDLINE" Owner="NLM"><PMID Version="1">26836981</PMID><DateCompleted><Year>2017</Year><Month>10</Month><Day>10</Day></DateCompleted><DateRevised><Year>2017</Year><Month>10</Month><Day>10</Day></DateRevised><Article PubModel="Print"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Electronic">1834-7819</ISSN><JournalIssue CitedMedium="Internet"><Volume>61</Volume><Issue>4</Issue><PubDate><Year>2016</Year><Month>Dec</Month></PubDate></JournalIssue><Title>Australian dental journal</Title><ISOAbbreviation>Aust Dent J</ISOAbbreviation></Journal><ArticleTitle>Comparison of implant supported mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures on quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.</ArticleTitle><Pagination><MedlinePgn>482-488</MedlinePgn></Pagination><ELocationID EIdType="doi" ValidYN="Y">10.1111/adj.12416</ELocationID><Abstract><AbstractText Label="BACKGROUND" NlmCategory="BACKGROUND">Conventional complete dentures and implant supported overdentures are commonly used by dentists to treat completely edentulous mandibular arches. There have been problems associated with retention and stability while treating completely edentulous mandibular arches compared to maxillary arches. Many factors have been attributed to this, primarily focusing on the decreased area available for support and increased resorption. Implant supported overdentures have increased the treatment options for resorbed ridges, especially the mandible. However, no reports have proved the superiority of one treatment option over the other, especially in terms of patient-centric outcome measures such as the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP). Hence, this meta-analysis was conducted.</AbstractText><AbstractText Label="METHODS" NlmCategory="METHODS">A literature search of Medline (via PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) was performed. The reviewers screened titles, abstracts and performed full-text screening of eligible studies. The references from these studies were further screened for additional relevant studies. A random effects model was applied to measure the significance of the per cent mean difference in OHIP scale improvement between implant and conventional dentures. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was applied to assess the selection, ascertainment and selective reporting biases.</AbstractText><AbstractText Label="RESULTS" NlmCategory="RESULTS">Five studies were reviewed and identified. Results of 441 patients (228 implant and 213 conventional) were pooled for analysis of primary outcome and other secondary outcomes. A forest plot of total OHIP scores and for secondary outcomes were obtained between the interventions. Results of 441 patients (228 implant and 213 conventional) were pooled for analysis of primary outcome with a mean difference [95% confidence interval] in the score of -30.72[-48.39, -13.05]; mean difference [95% confidence interval] in the score of -26.45[-43.56, -9.35] for functional limitation; -29.16[-60.89, 2.56] for physical pain; -77.61[-154.63, -0.60] for psychological discomfort; -33.70[-47.96, -19.44] for physical disability; -41.17[-55.93, -26.40] for psychological disability; -17.27[-29.44, 5.10] for social disability; and -28.45[-33.97, -22.92] for handicap. A statistically significant difference favouring the implant group was obtained except for physical pain.</AbstractText><AbstractText Label="CONCLUSIONS" NlmCategory="CONCLUSIONS">The implant overdenture group performed better in regard to patient satisfaction as measured using the OHIP questionnaire. Further studies are required to identify superiority between the two treatment options.</AbstractText><CopyrightInformation>© 2016 Australian Dental Association.</CopyrightInformation></Abstract><AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Sivaramakrishnan</LastName><ForeName>G</ForeName><Initials>G</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Department of Oral Health, Fiji National University, Suva, Fiji.</Affiliation></AffiliationInfo></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Sridharan</LastName><ForeName>K</ForeName><Initials>K</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Department of Health Sciences, Fiji National University, Suva, Fiji.</Affiliation></AffiliationInfo></Author></AuthorList><Language>eng</Language><PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType><PublicationType UI="D017418">Meta-Analysis</PublicationType><PublicationType UI="D016454">Review</PublicationType></PublicationTypeList></Article><MedlineJournalInfo><Country>Australia</Country><MedlineTA>Aust Dent J</MedlineTA><NlmUniqueID>0370612</NlmUniqueID><ISSNLinking>0045-0421</ISSNLinking></MedlineJournalInfo><CitationSubset>D</CitationSubset><CitationSubset>IM</CitationSubset><MeshHeadingList><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D019094" MajorTopicYN="Y">Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D003826" MajorTopicYN="Y">Denture, Complete, Lower</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D006801" MajorTopicYN="N">Humans</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D007575" MajorTopicYN="N">Jaw, Edentulous</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000523" MajorTopicYN="N">psychology</QualifierName><QualifierName UI="Q000534" MajorTopicYN="Y">rehabilitation</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D011788" MajorTopicYN="Y">Quality of Life</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D016896" MajorTopicYN="N">Treatment Outcome</DescriptorName></MeshHeading></MeshHeadingList><KeywordList Owner="NOTNLM"><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">Complete denture</Keyword><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">edentulous</Keyword><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">implant overdenture</Keyword><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">missing teeth</Keyword><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">prosthodontics</Keyword></KeywordList></MedlineCitation><PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="accepted"><Year>2016</Year><Month>01</Month><Day>27</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>2016</Year><Month>2</Month><Day>3</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>2017</Year><Month>10</Month><Day>11</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>2016</Year><Month>2</Month><Day>3</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate></History><PublicationStatus>ppublish</PublicationStatus><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">26836981</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1111/adj.12416</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></PubmedData></pubmed><affiliations><list><country><li>Fidji</li></country></list><tree><country name="Fidji"><noRegion><name sortKey="Sivaramakrishnan, G" sort="Sivaramakrishnan, G" uniqKey="Sivaramakrishnan G" first="G" last="Sivaramakrishnan">G. Sivaramakrishnan</name></noRegion><name sortKey="Sridharan, K" sort="Sridharan, K" uniqKey="Sridharan K" first="K" last="Sridharan">K. Sridharan</name></country></tree></affiliations></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Ncbi/Merge
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 006352 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Ncbi/Merge/biblio.hfd -nk 006352 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Ncbi
|étape= Merge
|type= RBID
|clé= pubmed:26836981
|texte= Comparison of implant supported mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures on quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.
}}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Ncbi/Merge/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:26836981" \
| HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Ncbi/Merge/biblio.hfd \
| NlmPubMed2Wicri -a EdenteV2
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |