Comparing bar and double-crown attachments in implant-retained prosthetic reconstruction: a follow-up investigation.
Identifieur interne : 002117 ( PubMed/Corpus ); précédent : 002116; suivant : 002118Comparing bar and double-crown attachments in implant-retained prosthetic reconstruction: a follow-up investigation.
Auteurs : Stephan Eitner ; Andreas Schlegel ; Nkenke Emeka ; Stefan Holst ; Joachim Will ; Jörg HamelSource :
- Clinical oral implants research [ 1600-0501 ] ; 2008.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alveolar Bone Loss (diagnostic imaging), Alveolar Bone Loss (etiology), Crowns, Dental Prosthesis Design, Dental Prosthesis Retention (instrumentation), Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported (adverse effects), Dental Restoration Failure, Denture, Overlay, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Jaw, Edentulous (rehabilitation), Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Male, Mandible, Middle Aged, Patient Satisfaction, Radiography, Statistics, Nonparametric.
- MESH :
- adverse effects : Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported.
- diagnostic imaging : Alveolar Bone Loss.
- etiology : Alveolar Bone Loss.
- instrumentation : Dental Prosthesis Retention.
- rehabilitation : Jaw, Edentulous.
- Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Crowns, Dental Prosthesis Design, Dental Restoration Failure, Denture, Overlay, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Male, Mandible, Middle Aged, Patient Satisfaction, Radiography, Statistics, Nonparametric.
Abstract
A removable implant-retained dental prosthesis in an edentulous mandible can use telescopic crowns or a bar superstructure as anchorage elements for an overdenture. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical results for bar-anchored and telescopic crown-retained overdentures in implant prosthetic treatment of the toothless lower jaw with two or more implants placed in the intraforaminal region.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01500.x
PubMed: 18371100
Links to Exploration step
pubmed:18371100Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Comparing bar and double-crown attachments in implant-retained prosthetic reconstruction: a follow-up investigation.</title><author><name sortKey="Eitner, Stephan" sort="Eitner, Stephan" uniqKey="Eitner S" first="Stephan" last="Eitner">Stephan Eitner</name><affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany. seitner@prothetik-erlangen.de</nlm:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Schlegel, Andreas" sort="Schlegel, Andreas" uniqKey="Schlegel A" first="Andreas" last="Schlegel">Andreas Schlegel</name></author><author><name sortKey="Emeka, Nkenke" sort="Emeka, Nkenke" uniqKey="Emeka N" first="Nkenke" last="Emeka">Nkenke Emeka</name></author><author><name sortKey="Holst, Stefan" sort="Holst, Stefan" uniqKey="Holst S" first="Stefan" last="Holst">Stefan Holst</name></author><author><name sortKey="Will, Joachim" sort="Will, Joachim" uniqKey="Will J" first="Joachim" last="Will">Joachim Will</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hamel, Jorg" sort="Hamel, Jorg" uniqKey="Hamel J" first="Jörg" last="Hamel">Jörg Hamel</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno><date when="2008">2008</date><idno type="RBID">pubmed:18371100</idno><idno type="pmid">18371100</idno><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01500.x</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Corpus">002117</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">002117</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">Comparing bar and double-crown attachments in implant-retained prosthetic reconstruction: a follow-up investigation.</title><author><name sortKey="Eitner, Stephan" sort="Eitner, Stephan" uniqKey="Eitner S" first="Stephan" last="Eitner">Stephan Eitner</name><affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany. seitner@prothetik-erlangen.de</nlm:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Schlegel, Andreas" sort="Schlegel, Andreas" uniqKey="Schlegel A" first="Andreas" last="Schlegel">Andreas Schlegel</name></author><author><name sortKey="Emeka, Nkenke" sort="Emeka, Nkenke" uniqKey="Emeka N" first="Nkenke" last="Emeka">Nkenke Emeka</name></author><author><name sortKey="Holst, Stefan" sort="Holst, Stefan" uniqKey="Holst S" first="Stefan" last="Holst">Stefan Holst</name></author><author><name sortKey="Will, Joachim" sort="Will, Joachim" uniqKey="Will J" first="Joachim" last="Will">Joachim Will</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hamel, Jorg" sort="Hamel, Jorg" uniqKey="Hamel J" first="Jörg" last="Hamel">Jörg Hamel</name></author></analytic><series><title level="j">Clinical oral implants research</title><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><imprint><date when="2008" type="published">2008</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Aged</term><term>Aged, 80 and over</term><term>Alveolar Bone Loss (diagnostic imaging)</term><term>Alveolar Bone Loss (etiology)</term><term>Crowns</term><term>Dental Prosthesis Design</term><term>Dental Prosthesis Retention (instrumentation)</term><term>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported (adverse effects)</term><term>Dental Restoration Failure</term><term>Denture, Overlay</term><term>Female</term><term>Follow-Up Studies</term><term>Humans</term><term>Jaw, Edentulous (rehabilitation)</term><term>Kaplan-Meier Estimate</term><term>Male</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Middle Aged</term><term>Patient Satisfaction</term><term>Radiography</term><term>Statistics, Nonparametric</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="adverse effects" xml:lang="en"><term>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="diagnostic imaging" xml:lang="en"><term>Alveolar Bone Loss</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="etiology" xml:lang="en"><term>Alveolar Bone Loss</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="instrumentation" xml:lang="en"><term>Dental Prosthesis Retention</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="rehabilitation" xml:lang="en"><term>Jaw, Edentulous</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="en"><term>Aged</term><term>Aged, 80 and over</term><term>Crowns</term><term>Dental Prosthesis Design</term><term>Dental Restoration Failure</term><term>Denture, Overlay</term><term>Female</term><term>Follow-Up Studies</term><term>Humans</term><term>Kaplan-Meier Estimate</term><term>Male</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Middle Aged</term><term>Patient Satisfaction</term><term>Radiography</term><term>Statistics, Nonparametric</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">A removable implant-retained dental prosthesis in an edentulous mandible can use telescopic crowns or a bar superstructure as anchorage elements for an overdenture. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical results for bar-anchored and telescopic crown-retained overdentures in implant prosthetic treatment of the toothless lower jaw with two or more implants placed in the intraforaminal region.</div></front></TEI><pubmed><MedlineCitation Status="MEDLINE" Owner="NLM"><PMID Version="1">18371100</PMID><DateCompleted><Year>2008</Year><Month>07</Month><Day>16</Day></DateCompleted><DateRevised><Year>2016</Year><Month>11</Month><Day>24</Day></DateRevised><Article PubModel="Print-Electronic"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Electronic">1600-0501</ISSN><JournalIssue CitedMedium="Internet"><Volume>19</Volume><Issue>5</Issue><PubDate><Year>2008</Year><Month>May</Month></PubDate></JournalIssue><Title>Clinical oral implants research</Title><ISOAbbreviation>Clin Oral Implants Res</ISOAbbreviation></Journal><ArticleTitle>Comparing bar and double-crown attachments in implant-retained prosthetic reconstruction: a follow-up investigation.</ArticleTitle><Pagination><MedlinePgn>530-7</MedlinePgn></Pagination><ELocationID EIdType="doi" ValidYN="Y">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01500.x</ELocationID><Abstract><AbstractText Label="OBJECTIVES" NlmCategory="OBJECTIVE">A removable implant-retained dental prosthesis in an edentulous mandible can use telescopic crowns or a bar superstructure as anchorage elements for an overdenture. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical results for bar-anchored and telescopic crown-retained overdentures in implant prosthetic treatment of the toothless lower jaw with two or more implants placed in the intraforaminal region.</AbstractText><AbstractText Label="MATERIAL AND METHODS" NlmCategory="METHODS">A clinical and radiographical comparison was made of the telescope vs. the bar method for removable prosthetic rehabilitation treatments in patients with an edentulous mandible. For evaluation of the clinical data, the sulcus fluid flow rate, Periotest values, and the peri-implant bone loss were recorded.</AbstractText><AbstractText Label="RESULTS" NlmCategory="RESULTS">In the follow-up examinations, 19 implant losses were reported between insertion and review of 328 implants. The frequency distribution of the observed loss rates showed no treatment-specific trend. In the group with bar-treated implants, failure led to 'group loss' of the whole prosthetic superstructure. Failure of one of the double-crown-stabilized full dental prosthesis could usually be adapted so that the overdenture remained usable even without re-implantation.</AbstractText><AbstractText Label="CONCLUSIONS" NlmCategory="CONCLUSIONS">After comparing all the clinical parameters evaluated, no significant difference between the stabilization of full dentures via conus and telescopic crowns and bar-anchored dentures could be found. The choice of one particular method remains the decision of the professional treating the patient.</AbstractText></Abstract><AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Eitner</LastName><ForeName>Stephan</ForeName><Initials>S</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany. seitner@prothetik-erlangen.de</Affiliation></AffiliationInfo></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Schlegel</LastName><ForeName>Andreas</ForeName><Initials>A</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Emeka</LastName><ForeName>Nkenke</ForeName><Initials>N</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Holst</LastName><ForeName>Stefan</ForeName><Initials>S</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Will</LastName><ForeName>Joachim</ForeName><Initials>J</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Hamel</LastName><ForeName>Jörg</ForeName><Initials>J</Initials></Author></AuthorList><Language>eng</Language><PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D003160">Comparative Study</PublicationType><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType><PublicationType UI="D016449">Randomized Controlled Trial</PublicationType></PublicationTypeList><ArticleDate DateType="Electronic"><Year>2008</Year><Month>03</Month><Day>26</Day></ArticleDate></Article><MedlineJournalInfo><Country>Denmark</Country><MedlineTA>Clin Oral Implants Res</MedlineTA><NlmUniqueID>9105713</NlmUniqueID><ISSNLinking>0905-7161</ISSNLinking></MedlineJournalInfo><CitationSubset>D</CitationSubset><MeshHeadingList><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000368" MajorTopicYN="N">Aged</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000369" MajorTopicYN="N">Aged, 80 and over</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D016301" MajorTopicYN="N">Alveolar Bone Loss</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000000981" MajorTopicYN="N">diagnostic imaging</QualifierName><QualifierName UI="Q000209" MajorTopicYN="N">etiology</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D003442" MajorTopicYN="N">Crowns</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D017267" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Prosthesis Design</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D017268" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Prosthesis Retention</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000295" MajorTopicYN="Y">instrumentation</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D019094" MajorTopicYN="Y">Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000009" MajorTopicYN="N">adverse effects</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D019232" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Restoration Failure</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D003828" MajorTopicYN="Y">Denture, Overlay</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D005260" MajorTopicYN="N">Female</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D005500" MajorTopicYN="N">Follow-Up Studies</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D006801" MajorTopicYN="N">Humans</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D007575" MajorTopicYN="N">Jaw, Edentulous</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000534" MajorTopicYN="N">rehabilitation</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D053208" MajorTopicYN="N">Kaplan-Meier Estimate</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008297" MajorTopicYN="N">Male</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008334" MajorTopicYN="N">Mandible</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008875" MajorTopicYN="N">Middle Aged</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D017060" MajorTopicYN="N">Patient Satisfaction</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D011859" MajorTopicYN="N">Radiography</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D018709" MajorTopicYN="N">Statistics, Nonparametric</DescriptorName></MeshHeading></MeshHeadingList></MedlineCitation><PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>2008</Year><Month>3</Month><Day>29</Day><Hour>9</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>2008</Year><Month>7</Month><Day>17</Day><Hour>9</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>2008</Year><Month>3</Month><Day>29</Day><Hour>9</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate></History><PublicationStatus>ppublish</PublicationStatus><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">18371100</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pii">CLR1500</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01500.x</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></PubmedData></pubmed></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/PubMed/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002117 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 002117 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= PubMed
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= pubmed:18371100
|texte= Comparing bar and double-crown attachments in implant-retained prosthetic reconstruction: a follow-up investigation.
}}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:18371100" \
| HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/biblio.hfd \
| NlmPubMed2Wicri -a EdenteV2
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |