Abstract
Design
This was a randomised controlled trial (RCT) set in a dental hospital.
Intervention
The implant group (IG) had two implants placed in the interforaminal region of the lower jaw followed (after healing) by a denture fixed to the implants by a ball attachment mechanism. In the conventional dentures group (CG), dentures were constructed using conventional replacement denture techniques. Patients in the IG had conventional upper dentures made in the same fashion.
Outcome measure
The performance of the dentures was evaluated using an oral health impact profile (OHIP) and a denture satisfaction scale before treatment and 3 months post-treatment.
Results
Analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Substantial improvements in oral-health-related quality of life and denture satisfaction were reported by both groups. There were, however, no significant differences post-treatment between the groups. Patients randomised to the IG who declined implants had significantly lower pretreatment OHIP scores and there were significantly greater pre-/ post-treatment change-scores for individuals who had implants compared with the change-scores of people who declined.
Conclusions
There were no significant post-treatment differences between the groups, but a treatment effect may be masked by the intention-to-treat analysis. The pre-/ post-treatment OHIP change-scores were significantly greater for people receiving implants than for those who refused.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Zelen M . A new design for randomized clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1979; 300:1242–1245.
Adamson J, Cockayne S, Puffer S, Torgerson DJ . Review of randomised trials using the post-randomised consent (Zelen's) design. Contemp Clin Trials 2006; 27:305–319.
Verheggen FW, Nieman FH, Reerink E, Kok GJ . Patient satisfaction with clinical trial participation. Int J Qual Health Care 1998; 10:319–330.
Feine JS, Awad MA, Lund JP . Rejoinder to Bradley: Patient preferences and clinical trial design and appreciation and critique of a paper by Feine, Awad and Lund. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1999; 27:89–92.
Walton JN, MacEntee MI . Choosing or refusing oral implants: a prospective study of edentulous volunteers for a clinical trial. Int J Prosthodont 2005; 18:483–488.
Kronstrom M, Palmqvist S, Soderfeldt B, Vigild M . Utilization of dental health services among middle-aged people in Sweden and Denmark. Acta Odontol Scand 2002; 60:276–280.
King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F, et al. Conceptual framework and systematic review of the effects of participants' and professionals' preferences in randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess 2005; 9 (35).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Address for correspondence: Dr PF Allen, University Dental School and Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland. E-mail: f.allen@ucc.ie
Allen PF, Thomason JM, Jepson NJ, Nohl F, Smith DG, Ellis J. A randomized controlled trial of implant-retained mandibular overdentures. J Dent Res 2006; 85:547–551
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jokstad, A. Implant retained or conventional dentures, which give more patients satisfaction?. Evid Based Dent 7, 96–97 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400446
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400446
This article is cited by
-
Locator® versus ceramic/electroplated double-crown attachments: a prospective study on the intraindividual comparison of implant-supported mandibular prostheses
Clinical Oral Investigations (2019)
-
The impact of implant treatment on oral health related quality of life in a private dental practice: a prospective cohort study
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes (2013)
-
Food choices of edentulous adults with implant-supported overdentures and conventional dentures
Evidence-Based Dentistry (2008)
