种植体数量或附着体类型是否影响患者对种植体保留下颌覆盖义齿的满意度?

IF 0.5 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of Osseointegration Pub Date : 2020-01-17 DOI:10.23805/JO.2020.12.01.04
Sercan Küçükkurt, H. Tükel
{"title":"种植体数量或附着体类型是否影响患者对种植体保留下颌覆盖义齿的满意度?","authors":"Sercan Küçükkurt, H. Tükel","doi":"10.23805/JO.2020.12.01.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim This study aimed to determine, from the patients’ perspective, the optimal number of implants and the type of attachment used to support a mandibular overdenture. \nMaterials and methods This study was conducted with 166 patients who had received new implant-retained overdentures (IODs) in the mandible and conventional total prostheses in the maxilla, and have been using for at least 1-year. Three types of attachment (ball attachment, bar holder, and locator) were connected to either two or four implants. Patients completed the OHIP–14 questionnaire, and the results were statistically analyzed. \nResults Patients were, in general, satisfied with their mandibular IODs (OHIP-ADD: 7.07 ±9.09, OHIP-SC: 0.95 ±2.11). While the satisfaction rate was higher for males (P 0.05). Higher satisfaction was observed for 4-implant support (P = 0.014), especially with bar holders (OHIP-SC: 0.13 ±0.43). No difference was found between the locator and ball attachment in prostheses with 2-implant (P > 0.05). \nConclusion Four implant-support, in particular, with bar-holders, exhibited higher satisfaction. There was no difference between locator and ball attachment in terms of patient satisfaction.","PeriodicalId":42724,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Osseointegration","volume":"4 1","pages":"154-160"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does number of implants or type of attachment affect patient satisfaction with implant-retained mandibular overdentures?\",\"authors\":\"Sercan Küçükkurt, H. Tükel\",\"doi\":\"10.23805/JO.2020.12.01.04\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim This study aimed to determine, from the patients’ perspective, the optimal number of implants and the type of attachment used to support a mandibular overdenture. \\nMaterials and methods This study was conducted with 166 patients who had received new implant-retained overdentures (IODs) in the mandible and conventional total prostheses in the maxilla, and have been using for at least 1-year. Three types of attachment (ball attachment, bar holder, and locator) were connected to either two or four implants. Patients completed the OHIP–14 questionnaire, and the results were statistically analyzed. \\nResults Patients were, in general, satisfied with their mandibular IODs (OHIP-ADD: 7.07 ±9.09, OHIP-SC: 0.95 ±2.11). While the satisfaction rate was higher for males (P 0.05). Higher satisfaction was observed for 4-implant support (P = 0.014), especially with bar holders (OHIP-SC: 0.13 ±0.43). No difference was found between the locator and ball attachment in prostheses with 2-implant (P > 0.05). \\nConclusion Four implant-support, in particular, with bar-holders, exhibited higher satisfaction. There was no difference between locator and ball attachment in terms of patient satisfaction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42724,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Osseointegration\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"154-160\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Osseointegration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23805/JO.2020.12.01.04\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Osseointegration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23805/JO.2020.12.01.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的本研究旨在从患者的角度确定用于支持下颌覆盖义齿的最佳种植体数量和附着体类型。材料与方法本研究选取166例使用1年以上的新型下颌骨种植覆盖义齿(IODs)和常规上颌全口义齿的患者为研究对象。三种类型的附着体(球附着体、杆固定器和定位器)连接到两个或四个植入物上。患者填写OHIP-14问卷,并对结果进行统计分析。结果患者对下颌骨iod总体满意(OHIP-ADD: 7.07±9.09,OHIP-SC: 0.95±2.11)。而男性满意度较高(P < 0.05)。4种植体支架的满意度较高(P = 0.014),尤其是棒托(OHIP-SC: 0.13±0.43)。2种植体假体定位器与球附着体无显著性差异(P > 0.05)。结论四种种植体支持方式的满意度较高,其中以带杆的种植体支持方式的满意度最高。在患者满意度方面,定位器和滚珠附着没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Does number of implants or type of attachment affect patient satisfaction with implant-retained mandibular overdentures?
Aim This study aimed to determine, from the patients’ perspective, the optimal number of implants and the type of attachment used to support a mandibular overdenture. Materials and methods This study was conducted with 166 patients who had received new implant-retained overdentures (IODs) in the mandible and conventional total prostheses in the maxilla, and have been using for at least 1-year. Three types of attachment (ball attachment, bar holder, and locator) were connected to either two or four implants. Patients completed the OHIP–14 questionnaire, and the results were statistically analyzed. Results Patients were, in general, satisfied with their mandibular IODs (OHIP-ADD: 7.07 ±9.09, OHIP-SC: 0.95 ±2.11). While the satisfaction rate was higher for males (P 0.05). Higher satisfaction was observed for 4-implant support (P = 0.014), especially with bar holders (OHIP-SC: 0.13 ±0.43). No difference was found between the locator and ball attachment in prostheses with 2-implant (P > 0.05). Conclusion Four implant-support, in particular, with bar-holders, exhibited higher satisfaction. There was no difference between locator and ball attachment in terms of patient satisfaction.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Osseointegration
Journal of Osseointegration DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
25.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Sealing ability of a bioceramic sealer used in combination with cold and warm obturation techniques Screw-retained restoration of a facially shifted postextraction implant in the esthetic zone with immediate provisionalization Evaluation of marginal bone loss around SLActive implants by CBCT using different implant dimensions and surgical approaches: A clinical and radiological prospective study A minimally invasive approach to osseo-disintegrate implants via thermal energy. An in-vivo pilot study Biomechanical behavior of the dental implant macrodesign in mandibular implant-supported overdentures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1