Hansonziegler3950

Data sources Pubmed and EMBASE databases were searched from 2000 to 2017 and complemented by manual searching of the references of reviews and the full-text articles assessed for inclusion.Study selection The inclusion criteria were (i) Randomised clinical trials (RCT), prospective or retrospective studies, and case series or case reports including at least ten totally edentulous patients rehabilitated with maxillary implant-supported overdenture; (ii) analysed one of the following outcomes survival rate of the implants, survival rate of the overdenture and patient-reported results; (iii) had at least two years of follow-up; (iv) and were written in English language.Data extraction and synthesis The data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. The comparison of the analysed outcomes was performed by nonparametric Fisher Test for unpaired data according to the number of implants and to the splinting technique. A meta-analysis was performed for the odds ratio (OR) for implant failure between four splinted implants and more than four splinted implants.Results Twenty-eight studies were included in the systematic review. The survival rate of implants appeared to be higher when at least four implants were placed to support the overdenture, compared to less than four implants. The survival rate of overdentures and the patient satisfaction were not influenced by the number of implants.The metanalysis could only be performed to compare the implant survival rate of a four splinted implants group and more than 4 splinted implants group, without significant differences between both groups (OR = 0.39; 95 % CI 0.14, 1.14; p = 0.09).Conclusions Although the placement of at least four implants to support a maxillary overdenture seems to report higher implant survival rates, further studies are needed to confirm this conclusion. check details No differences were found for overdenture survival rates or patient satisfaction according to the number of implants.Data sources PubMED Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System online (MEDLINE), Web of Knowledge/Science (WoK/WoS), Psychological Information Databases (PsycINFO) and Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE).Study selection Limited to articles published between 2008 and 2018, following the previous systematic review up to 2008 (Anders and Davis 2010). The first reviewer screened articles, using clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a random selection of 10% of articles were checked by the second reviewer for inconsistencies.Data extraction and synthesis Data extracted using a pre-prepared database. Independent quality assessment of included articles was undertaken using the Oxford Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Checklist of 12 questions, resulting in a total CASP 'score'. A second reviewer checked CASP appraisal of 10% of articles, to discuss and resolve any discrepancies found. Kappa statistics indicated almost perfect agreement between the two reviewers (Cohen's k 0.88). Results included t with ID in either community-based or institution settings, poorer oral health was reported for those living in an institution. Two studies investigated the effects of periodontal treatment, both demonstrating positive health outcomes. Conclusions Studies indicated adults with ID still experience poor oral health, with a high level of unmet dental need, despite improvements in care provision. There are limitations to this review, including study design. This patient group present with many confounding factors that influence oral health, including manual dexterity and co-morbidities, however, only 19 studies considered these factors. However, the need to reduce oral health inequalities globally can be extrapolated, with recommendations of improvement in access to dental services, training and resources of general dental practitioners to improve the oral health of adults with ID. Further studies are needed, with robust study design, to include confounding factors.Design A prospective interdisciplinary, multi-centre, cohort study.Cohort selection A total of 250 patients were recruited from three university departments of orthodontics and one orthodontic dental practice. The cohort size was decided by a sample size calculation performed and the participants were selected over 14 months. Four psychological questionnaires were used, each targeting specific psychological characteristics, combined with orthodontic assessments. Only questionnaires in English, with German translations, were chosen for international comparability. The COHIP-19 was used to assess Oral Health Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL), the KIDSCREEN-10 index was used to assess HRQoL, the RSES was used to assess self-esteem and the SDQ was used for behavioral problems. To record the orthodontic parameters, standardised orthodontic diagnosis consisted of detailed anamnesis, functional diagnosis, extra-oral photos, an orthopantomogram, lateral cephalomentrics and plaster impressions. The same assessor examine-index-upper and overbite) parameters resulted in a multi-linear regression model that was statistically significant and explained 32.3% of the total variance in OHRQoL. Adding additional parameters did not significantly improve the R2-change.Conclusions Further longitudinal studies are required to investigate if the treatment of these malocclusions also improves the OHRQoL of children and adolescents.Design This study is a parallel group randomised un-blinded trial with equal allocation to evaluate and compare the success of ART with HVGIC and composite restorations in class II cavities in permanent molars. Study population The study populations included 154 participants who were selected from 17 different schools of Bauru and adjoining areas in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Children with good general and oral health and having 1 or 2 class II cavities were chosen. Only one restoration per child which exhibited good occlusal contact was finally chosen for the purpose of study. The participants were then stratified as per DMFT-score and cavity size. After stratifying the participants in four conglomerates, they were randomly allocated to either ART with HVGIC or composite restoration group. Later, the participants were recalled at 6 and 12 months and the restorations were evaluated using ART and modified-USPHS criteria. Data analysis Frequency statistics, which included chi square, chi square for trend and Fisher's exact test, were used for determining the association between restoration type and different baseline variables and for determining the association between distribution of scores obtained with ART and composite restorations for different evaluation criteria.