Patient evaluation of treatment with fixed prosthodontics supported by implants or a combination of teeth and implants

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare treatment outcomes among subjects with complete arch fixed prostheses in the maxilla, supported by implants or a combination of natural teeth and dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one subjects with maxillary tooth- and implant-supported fixed prostheses and 21 subjects with maxillary implant-supported fixed prostheses were identified and included in the study. All abutment teefh in the group with tooth- and implant-supported prostheses were provided with cemented copings that incorporated threads for vertical locking screws. Frameworks were fabricated with a gold alloy that was veneered with acrylic resin or ceramic materials. All frameworks were screw-retained to implants and copings. Frameworks in the group with implant-supported prostheses were fabricated with milled titanium or gold alloy to which denture teeth and resin base material were applied. All prostheses had a minimum of 8 units, at least 4 of which were in one quadrant. Subjects in both groups were mailed a questionnaire consisting of 15 questions focused on various factors related to treatment outcome, such as oral function and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The response rate was 86%. Both groups reported a high satisfaction rate for most items with few regretting their choice of treatment. Most individuals in both groups reported great improvement in chewing ability and few reported phonetic disturbances. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study showed similarity in questionnaire responses between the 2 groups of participants. High satisfaction was repoited both among subjects who received a complete arch fixed prosthesis in the maxilla supported by dental implants only, as wdl as among those whose prostheses were supported by a combination of natural teeth and dental implants

Methods for objectively assessing clinical masticatory performance: protocol for a systematic review

Background Chewing and masticatory function constitutes one of the most important oral health factors that affect quality of life, especially in older individuals. Little consensus currently exists regarding ways to objectively assess clinical masticatory performance (in this context, performance refers an individual’s objective ability to mix or comminute food bolus). That said, many methods were developed to assess masticatory performance. Consequently, systematic review of the literature would be of great value when it comes to identifying various methods for objectively assessing clinical masticatory performance and for evaluating these methods. Design This study protocol describes a systematic review that intends to (i) identify methods to objectively assess clinical masticatory performance and (ii) evaluate psychometric properties (such as validity and reliability) of the identified methods. A systematic literature search is required to do so in these sources: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (embase.com), Web of Science Core Collection (Thomson Reuters), Cochrane (Wiley), and Cinahl (Ebsco). Inclusion criteria: studies in scientific, full-text articles; development articles; validation articles; studies of the general adult population, ages ≥18. Exclusion criteria: topics and article types that cover interview methods and self-reported questionnaires; methods/instruments that measure subjective masticatory performance; qualitative studies and case studies; opinion and editorial pieces; animal studies; studies of humans with severe oral health complications. Discussion This systematic review will result in a comprehensive assessment of various methods designed to objectively measure clinical masticatory performance. This systematic review will rate these methods, assess their reliability and validity, and identify one or more methods that can be recommended for use in clinical and scientific environments. From what is currently known, no systematic evaluation of various methods for objectively assessing clinical masticatory performance has been published