This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Feine, J.S. Articles by Lund, J.P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Feine, J.S. Articles by Lund, J.P. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Within-subject Comparisons of Implant-supported Mandibular Prostheses: Choice of Prosthesis

Universite de Montreal, Faculte de medecine dentaire, Departement de restauration, C.P. 6128, Succ. Centreville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3J7, Canada

P. de Grandmont

Universite de Montreal, Faculte de medecine dentaire, Departement de restauration, C.P. 6128, Succ. Centreville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3J7, Canada

P. Boudrias

Département de dentisterie de restauration, Faculte de medecine dentaire, Universite de Montreal

N. Brien

Département de dentisterie de restauration, Faculte de medecine dentaire, Universite de Montreal

C. LaMarche

Département de dentisterie de restauration, Faculte de medecine dentaire, Universite de Montreal

R. Taché

Département de dentisterie de restauration, Faculte de medecine dentaire, Universite de Montreal

J.P. Lund

Departement de stomatologie, Faculte de medecine dentaire and Centre de recherche en sciences neurologiques, Faculte de medecine, Universite de Montreal

Although previous studies have demonstrated that implant-supported prostheses are more satisfactory and efficient for edentulous patients than are conventional prostheses, until now no investigation has directly compared different types of implant-supported prostheses. We carried out a within-subject cross-over clinical trial with fixed and long-bar removable implant-supported mandibular prostheses. Fifteen subjects were randomly divided into two groups. One group received the fixed prosthesis first, while the other first received the removable. After a two-month adaptation period, psychometric measurements of various aspects of the prostheses and physiological tests of masticatory efficiency were carried out. The prostheses were then changed, and the procedures repeated. At the end of the study, subjects chose the prosthesis they wished to keep. In this paper, we report on the data gathered at this last appointment. Eight subjects chose the fixed (F group), and seven chose the removable (R group). Both groups rated stability and ability to chew with the fixed as significantly better than with the removable. However, the R group rated ease of cleaning as the most important factor governing their decision, followed by esthetics and stability. The F group considered stability to be the most important factor in their decision, followed by chewing ability and ability to clean. There was a tendency for the removable to be chosen by older subjects (+50 years). These results suggest that patients choose fixed or removable implant-supported prostheses for specific reasons, and that patient attitudes should be considered when the design of a prosthesis is being planned for an individual patient.

Key Words: Oral Implants • Prostheses • Clinical Trial.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 73, No. 5, 1105-1111 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/00220345940730051301


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. M. Stanford Dental Implants: A Role in Geriatric Dentistry for the General Practice? J Am Dent Assoc, September 1, 2007; 138(suppl_1): 34S - 40S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. M. STANFORD Application of oral implants to the general dental practice J Am Dent Assoc, August 1, 2005; 136(8): 1092 - 1100. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Tang, J.P. Lund, R. Tache, C.M.L. Clokie, and J.S. Feine A Within-subject Comparison of Mandibular Long-bar and Hybrid Implant-supported Prostheses: Evaluation of Masticatory Function Journal of Dental Research, September 1, 1999; 78(9): 1544 - 1553. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. J. Henry Clinical Experiences with Dental Implants Advances in Dental Research, June 1, 1999; 13(1): 147 - 152. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. Tang, J.P. Lund, R. Tache, C.M.L. Clokie, and J.S. Feine A Within-subject Comparison of Mandibular Long-bar and Hybrid Implant-supported Prostheses: Psychometric Evaluation and Patient Preference Journal of Dental Research, October 1, 1997; 76(10): 1675 - 1683. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J.S. Feine, K. Maskawi, P. De Grandmont, W. Donohue, R. Tanguay, and J.P. Lund Within-subject Comparisons of Implant-supported Mandibular Prostheses: Evaluation of Masticatory Function Journal of Dental Research, October 1, 1994; 73(10): 1646 - 1656. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. de Grandmont, J.S. Feine, R. Tache, P. Boudrias, W.B. Donohue, R. Tanguay, and J.P. Lund Within-subject Comparisons of Implant-supported Mandibular Prostheses: Psychometric Evaluation Journal of Dental Research, May 1, 1994; 73(5): 1096 - 1104. [Abstract] [PDF]