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/1843/45459
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.creatorNahla Eid Kamel Selimtahapt_BR
dc.creatorDanilo Rocha Diaspt_BR
dc.creatorTalitha Maria Cabral Oliveirapt_BR
dc.creatorJoão Antônio Chaves Souzapt_BR
dc.creatorCláudio Rodrigues Lelespt_BR
dc.date.accessioned2022-09-24T18:43:46Z-
dc.date.available2022-09-24T18:43:46Z-
dc.date.issued2019-09-24-
dc.citation.volume47pt_BR
dc.citation.issue03pt_BR
dc.citation.spage361pt_BR
dc.citation.epage369pt_BR
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/joor.12895pt_BR
dc.identifier.issn0305182Xpt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1843/45459-
dc.description.resumoBackground Retention and stabilisation of a single-implant mandibular overdenture (SIMO) are influenced by the biomechanical properties and clinical performance of the attachment system. Purpose To compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes following the use of two retention systems, a ball and a stud-type Equator attachment used for SIMO. Material and Methods Eighteen fully edentulous participants were treated with a SIMO opposing to a maxillary complete denture. They received two retentive attachments (ball and Equator) in alternate periods (sequences A-B and B-A) and outcomes were assessed after the 1 week (initial) and 3 months (final) periods. In the final assessment, patients were also asked about their preferred retention system. Results Compared with baseline, there was an improvement in patient satisfaction using both attachments, whilst no difference was observed between initial and final periods. Similarly, no significant differences were observed when comparing the ball and Equator at the initial (P = .330) and final (P = .08) periods. The multilevel mixed-model analysis revealed that the patients’ satisfaction was predicted only by their satisfaction with dentures before implant placement. Although no significant difference was found between attachments regarding patient preference, this may be biased by the sequence of attachment use, which suggests that a learning effect might be present in this crossover study design. Conclusion The use of a single midline implant to retain a mandibular overdenture significantly improves patient satisfaction irrespective of the attachment used, but patients’ preference for the second treatment suggested a learning effect in this study.pt_BR
dc.description.sponsorshipCNPq - Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológicopt_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.ispartofJournal of Oral Rehabilitationpt_BR
dc.rightsAcesso Restritopt_BR
dc.subjectCross-over studiespt_BR
dc.subjectDental implantspt_BR
dc.subjectDenturept_BR
dc.subjectDenture retentionpt_BR
dc.subjectPatient preferencept_BR
dc.subjectPatient satisfactionpt_BR
dc.subject.otherCross-over studiespt_BR
dc.subject.otherDenturespt_BR
dc.subject.otherDental implantspt_BR
dc.subject.otherDenture retentionpt_BR
dc.subject.otherPatient preferencept_BR
dc.subject.otherPatient satisfactionpt_BR
dc.titlePatient satisfaction with ball and Equator attachments for single implant mandibular overdentures: a short term randomized crossover clinical trialpt_BR
dc.typeArtigo de Periódicopt_BR
dc.url.externahttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joor.12895pt_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.