Journal of dentistry · 2023
Functional performance and impact on the quality of life of three treatment strategies for mandibular edentulism: Results of a parallel 3-group cross-sectional study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Faot Fernanda, Petiz Helena Cristina Fernandes Carter, Bielemann Amália Machado, Possebon Anna Paula da Rosa, Boscato Noeli, Chagas-Júnior Otacílio Luiz, Pinto Luciana de Rezende
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This parallel cross-sectional study compared masticatory function and patient-centered outcomes among 3 removable treatment strategies for mandibular edentulism.
METHODS: Thirty-six edentulous participants rehabilitated using 3 removable treatment strategies for mandibular edentulism were allocated to one of the three groups (n=12): CCD (control), 2-IMO, and 3-IMO. Narrow diameter implants were installed using single-stage surgery and conventionally loaded with stud abutments. After 3 months of usage, the quality of life, maximum bite force, and masticatory function were evaluated. Data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis test and post hoc pairwise Mann-Whitney tests with Bonferroni correction (α=0.05).
RESULTS: The 2-IMO and 3-IMO wearers did not show significant differences in any outcome, except for the 2 domains of 3-IMO wearers quality of life that obtained better Pain and General Performance scores. Both IMO groups presented significantly higher maximum bite force than CCD wearers. The 2-IMO wearers showed superior outcomes to the CCD group in all outcomes of the masticatory performance test and the X50, B and ME5.6 outcomes of the swallowing threshold test (p = 0.01), while 3-IMO participants only showed superior masticatory performance in terms of lower X50 values (19.86%, p = 0.02) and higher ME 2.8 (141.15%, p = 0.04) than CCD wearers.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to 2-IMO wearers, 3-IMO wearers report superior impact of treatment on daily living activities in the Pain and General Performance domains. 2-IMO and 3-IMO wearers showed no significant differences between them for all evaluated bite force and masticatory function parameters.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Although overdentures retained by 3 implants (3-IMO) provide biomechanical advantages over those retained by 2 implants (2-IMO), superior clinical and functional effectiveness is not yet proven.
METHODS: Thirty-six edentulous participants rehabilitated using 3 removable treatment strategies for mandibular edentulism were allocated to one of the three groups (n=12): CCD (control), 2-IMO, and 3-IMO. Narrow diameter implants were installed using single-stage surgery and conventionally loaded with stud abutments. After 3 months of usage, the quality of life, maximum bite force, and masticatory function were evaluated. Data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis test and post hoc pairwise Mann-Whitney tests with Bonferroni correction (α=0.05).
RESULTS: The 2-IMO and 3-IMO wearers did not show significant differences in any outcome, except for the 2 domains of 3-IMO wearers quality of life that obtained better Pain and General Performance scores. Both IMO groups presented significantly higher maximum bite force than CCD wearers. The 2-IMO wearers showed superior outcomes to the CCD group in all outcomes of the masticatory performance test and the X50, B and ME5.6 outcomes of the swallowing threshold test (p = 0.01), while 3-IMO participants only showed superior masticatory performance in terms of lower X50 values (19.86%, p = 0.02) and higher ME 2.8 (141.15%, p = 0.04) than CCD wearers.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to 2-IMO wearers, 3-IMO wearers report superior impact of treatment on daily living activities in the Pain and General Performance domains. 2-IMO and 3-IMO wearers showed no significant differences between them for all evaluated bite force and masticatory function parameters.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Although overdentures retained by 3 implants (3-IMO) provide biomechanical advantages over those retained by 2 implants (2-IMO), superior clinical and functional effectiveness is not yet proven.