1. Repositório Institucional da UFMG
  2. Publicações Científicas e Culturais
  3. Artigo de Periódico
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1843/45458
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.creatorCláudio Rodrigues Lelespt_BR
dc.creatorDanilo Rocha Diaspt_BR
dc.creatorTúlio Eduardo Nogueirapt_BR
dc.creatorGerald Mckennapt_BR
dc.creatorMartin Schimmelpt_BR
dc.creatorLidia Moraes Ribeiro Jordãopt_BR
dc.date.accessioned2022-09-24T18:40:21Z-
dc.date.available2022-09-24T18:40:21Z-
dc.date.issued2019-02-10-
dc.citation.volume30pt_BR
dc.citation.spage285pt_BR
dc.citation.epage292pt_BR
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/clr.13414pt_BR
dc.identifier.issn09057161pt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1843/45458-
dc.description.resumoObjective The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patient characteristics on edentulous subjects’ preferences for different prosthodontic treatments with implants. Materials and methods A cross-sectional study was carried out with 131 edentulous subjects referred for treatment at a university clinic. Participants received detailed information about available treatment options and were asked to rank their preferences among three alternatives for rehabilitation of the maxilla and mandible: conventional dentures (CD), 2-implant-retained overdentures (IOD), or 4-implant fixed dentures (IFD). Individual data and prosthodontic-related variables were assessed through interviews. Oral health-related quality of life impacts was measured using the Brazilian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile for edentulous subjects (OHIP-Edent). Descriptive statistics, bivariate tests, and binary and multinomial logistic regressions were used for data analysis. Results The majority of participants chose CD as their most preferred treatment for the maxilla (45.8%), while IFD was the most prevalent choice for the mandible (38.9%). Regression analysis showed that the OHIP-Edent “oral pain and dysfunction” (OPD) domain scores were positively associated with IOD preference for the maxilla (OR = 1.31; p = 0.010) and mandible (OR = 1.46; p = 0.002) and with IFD preference for the mandible (OR = 1.20; p = 0.031). Subjects with lower levels of formal education and those with lower income levels were less likely to choose IFD. Conclusion Level of education, income, and perceived quality of life impacts are potentially predictive variables of edentulous patients’ preference for rehabilitation with implants. These factors may constitute important aspects to be considered by clinicians when treatment planning for edentulous patientspt_BR
dc.format.mimetypepdfpt_BR
dc.languageengpt_BR
dc.publisherUniversidade Federal de Minas Geraispt_BR
dc.publisher.countryBrasilpt_BR
dc.publisher.departmentFAO - DEPARTAMENTO DE ODONTOLOGIA RESTAURADORApt_BR
dc.publisher.initialsUFMGpt_BR
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Implants Researchpt_BR
dc.rightsAcesso Restritopt_BR
dc.subjectComplete denturept_BR
dc.subjectDental implantspt_BR
dc.subjectImplant supported denturept_BR
dc.subjectOverdenturept_BR
dc.subjectPatient preferencept_BR
dc.subject.otherDental implantspt_BR
dc.subject.otherDenture completept_BR
dc.subject.otherDental prosthesis implant-supportedpt_BR
dc.subject.otherPatient preferencept_BR
dc.subject.otherQuality of lifept_BR
dc.titleImpact of patient characteristics on edentulous subjects' preferences for prosthodontic rehabilitation with implantspt_BR
dc.typeArtigo de Periódicopt_BR
dc.url.externahttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.13414pt_BR
Appears in Collections:Artigo de Periódico

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Show simple item record


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.