4.1 Article

Impact of mandibular conventional denture and overdenture on quality of life and masticatory efficiency

期刊

BRAZILIAN ORAL RESEARCH
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SOCIEDADE BRASILEIRA DE PESQUISA ODONTOLOGICA
DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2016.vol30.0102

关键词

Dental Implants; Quality of Life; Bite Force

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this non-randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the oral health-related quality of life and masticatory efficiency of patients rehabilitated with mandibular two-implant overdentures with immediate loading or conventional dentures. Fifty completely edentulous patients wearing bimaxillary conventional dentures, for at least one year, were recruited. The patients were then assigned to either two treatment groups: mandibular overdentures supported by two implants with bar-clip system and a maxillary conventional denture (n = 25), and new maxillary and mandibular conventional complete dentures (n = 25). Masticatory efficiency and oral health-related quality of life were assessed before and 3 months after denture insertion. The Brazilian version of OHIP-Edent questionnaire was used to assess the oral health-related quality of life. Masticatory efficiency was evaluated with chewing capsules through a colorimetric method. The results revealed fewer oral health-related quality of life problems in patients wearing mandibular two-implant overdentures compared to the conventional dentures group. In addition, the implant overdenture group presented statistically significant improvement in masticatory efficiency (p = 0.001). There was no correlation between masticatory efficiency and OHIP in the implant group (p > 0.05), however a correlation was found in the conventional denture group (p < 0.05). Therefore, these short-term results suggest that mandibular overdenture retained by 2 implants with immediate loading combined with maxillary conventional dentures provide better masticatory efficiency and oral health-related quality of life than mandibular conventional dentures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据