This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) 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. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Dentures 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.

REFERENCES

• Adell R., Eriksson B., Lekholm U., Branemark P-I., Jemt T. ( 1990). A long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. IntJ Oral Maxillofac Implants 5:347-359.
• Bolender CL (1988). Indications and contraindications for different types of implant therapy. J Dent Ed 52:757-759.
• de Grandmont P., Feine JS, Tache R., Boudrias P., Tanguay R., Donohue WB, et al. (1994). Within-subject comparisons of implant-supported mandibular prostheses: psychometric evaluation. J Dent Res 73:1096-1104.
• Feine JS, de Grandmont P., Donohue WB, Brien N., Tache R., Lund JP ( 1991). Sample size determination in a within-subject comparison of implant-supported prostheses (abstract). J Dent Res 70:560.
• Goldstein H. (1986). Multilevel mixed linear model analysis using generalized least squares. Biometrika 73:43-56.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Goldstein H. (1987). Multilevel model in educational and social research. London: Griffins.
• Jemt T. ( 1991). Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Brån_mark in edentulous jaws: a study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 6:270-276.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Laney WR, Tolman DE (1989). The Mayo Clinic experience with tissue-integrated implants. In: The Brånemark osseointegrated implant. Albrektsson T, Zarb GA, editors. Chicago: Quintessence Publ. Co., pp. 165-195.
• Lekholm U., Adell R., Lindhe J., Branemark P-I., Eriksson B., Rockler B., et al. (1986). Marginal tissue reactions at osseointegrated titanium fixtures. II. A cross-sectional retrospective study. IntJ Oral Maxillofac Implants 15:53-61.
• Limeback H. (1988). The relationship between oral health and systemic infections among elderly residents of chronic care facilities: a review. Gerodontology 7:131-137.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Maxwell C. (1978). Sensitivity and accuracy of the visual analogue scale: a psychophysical classroom experiment. Br J Clin Pharmacol 6:15-24.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Millar MG, Tesser A. (1986). The effects of affective and cognitive focus on the attitude-behavior relationship. J Personality & Soc Psych 51:270-276.
• Millar MG, Tesser A. (1989). The effects of affective-cognitive consistency and thought on the attitude-behavior relation. J Exp Soc Psych 25:189-202.
• Naert I., Quirynen M., Theuniers G., van Steenberghe D. (1991). Prosthetic aspects of osseointegrated fixtures supporting overdentures. A 4-year report. J Prosthet Dent 65:671-680.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• van Steenberghe D. (1989). The impact of osseointegrated prostheses on treatment planning in oral rehabilitation. In: The Branemark osseointegrated implant. Albrektsson T, Zarb GA, editors. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Company Inc., pp. 140-141.
• Wilson TD, Schooler JW (1991). Thinking too much: introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. J Personality & Soc Psych 60:181-192.[CrossRef]

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]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) 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. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Dentures Social Bookmarking                         What's this?