Patient satisfaction with ball and Equator attachments for single implant mandibular overdentures: a short term randomized crossover clinical trial

Página do item simplificado
dc.creatorNahla Eid Kamel Selimtaha
dc.creatorDanilo Rocha Dias
dc.creatorTalitha Maria Cabral Oliveira
dc.creatorJoão Antônio Chaves Souza
dc.creatorCláudio Rodrigues Leles
dc.date.accessioned2022-09-24T18:43:46Z
dc.date.accessioned2025-09-08T22:58:57Z
dc.date.available2022-09-24T18:43:46Z
dc.date.issued2019-09-24
dc.description.sponsorshipCNPq - Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
dc.format.mimetypepdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/joor.12895
dc.identifier.issn0305182X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1843/45459
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Oral Rehabilitation
dc.rightsAcesso Restrito
dc.subjectCross-over studies
dc.subjectDentures
dc.subjectDental implants
dc.subjectDenture retention
dc.subjectPatient preference
dc.subjectPatient satisfaction
dc.subject.otherCross-over studies
dc.subject.otherDental implants
dc.subject.otherDenture
dc.subject.otherDenture retention
dc.subject.otherPatient preference
dc.subject.otherPatient satisfaction
dc.titlePatient satisfaction with ball and Equator attachments for single implant mandibular overdentures: a short term randomized crossover clinical trial
dc.typeArtigo de periódico
local.citation.epage369
local.citation.issue03
local.citation.spage361
local.citation.volume47
local.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.
local.publisher.countryBrasil
local.publisher.departmentFAO - DEPARTAMENTO DE ODONTOLOGIA RESTAURADORA
local.publisher.initialsUFMG
local.url.externahttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joor.12895

Arquivos

Licença do pacote

Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
Imagem de Miniatura
Nome:
License.txt
Tamanho:
1.99 KB
Formato:
Plain Text
Descrição:
Baixar

Coleções

Artigo de Periódico

Logo UFMG