BRYANT AND ZARB

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

REFERENCES
1. Bryant SR, Zarb GA. Implant prosthodontic treatment outcomes in elderly patients. In: Zarb, GA, Lekholm, U, Albrektsson, T, Tenenbaum, H, editors. Ageing, osteoporosis, and dental implants. Chicago: Quintessence; 2002. p. 169-87. 2. Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. Consensus report: towards optimized treatment outcomes for dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:641. 3. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416. 4. Chaytor DV, Zarb GA, Schmitt A, Lewis DW. The longitudinal effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants. The Toronto study: bone level changes. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1991;11:112-25. 5. Jemt T. Implant treatment in elderly patients. Int J Prosthodont 1993;6: 456-61. 6. Holm-Pedersen P, Loe H. Wound healing in the gingiva of young and old individuals. Scand J Dent Res 1971;79:40-53. 7. DIppolito G, Schiller PC, Ricordi C, Roos BA, Howard GA. Age-related osteogenic potential of mesenchymal stromal stem cells from human vertebral bone marrow. J Bone Miner Res 1999;14:1115-22. 8. Cummings SR, Kelsey JL, Nevitt MC, ODowd KJ. Epidemiology of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures. Epidemiol Rev 1985;7:178-208. 9. Schei O, Waerhaug J, Lovdal A, Arno A. Alveolar bone loss as related to oral hygiene and age. J Periodontol 1959;30:7-16. 10. Atwood DA. Reduction of residual ridges: a major oral disease entity. J Prosthet Dent 1971;26:266-79. 11. Tallgren A. The continuing reduction of the residual alveolar ridges in complete denture wearers: a mixed-longitudinal study covering 25 years. J Prosthet Dent 1972;27:120-32. 12. Papapanou PN, Wennstrom JL, Grondahl K. A 10-year retrospective study of periodontal disease progression. J Clin Periodontol 1989;16:403-11.

13. Bryant SR, Zarb GA. Osseointegration of oral implants in older and younger adults. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:492-9. 14. Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. In: Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, editors. Tissue-integrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence; 1985. p. 199-209. 15. Dawson BK, Trapp RG. Basic and clinical biostatistics. 3rd ed. East Norwalk, Conn: McGraw-Hill/Appleton Lange; 2001. p. 133-44, 218-24. 16. Cox JF, Pharoah M. An alternate holder for radiographic evaluation of tissue integrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1986;56:338-41. 17. Wyatt CC, Bryant SR, Aviv-Arber L, Chaytor DV, Zarb GA. A computerassisted measurement technique to assess bone proximal to oral implants on intraoral radiographs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:225-9. 18. Branemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindstrom J, Hallen O, et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw: experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl 1977;16:1-132. Reprint requests to: DR ROSS BRYANT FACULTY OF DENTISTRY UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 2199 WESBROOK MALL VANCOUVER, BC V6T 1Z3 FAX: 604-822-3562 E-MAIL: rbryant@interchange.ubc.ca Copyright 2003 by The Editorial Council of The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 0022-3913/2003/$30.00 0 doi:10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00199-9

Noteworthy Abstracts of the Current Literature

Comparing the efcacy of mandibular implant-retained overdentures and conventional dentures among middleaged edentulous patients: Satisfaction and functional assessment. Manal A. Awad, James P. Lund, Eric Dufresne, and Jocelyne S. Feine Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:117-122.

Purpose. The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the relative efcacy of mandibular overdentures retained by only two implants and a bar attachment with conventional dentures. Materials and Methods. Edentulous adults, aged 35 to 65 years, were randomly assigned to two groups that received either a mandibular conventional denture (n 48) or an overdenture supported by two endosseous implants with a connecting bar (n 54). All subjects rated their general satisfaction and other features of their original dentures and their new prostheses (comfort, stability, ability to chew, speech, esthetics, and cleaning ability) on 100-mm visual analogue scales prior to treatment and 2 months postdelivery. Oral health-related quality of life was also evaluated pre- and posttreatment. Results. Multiple regression analysis revealed that the mean general satisfaction was signicantly higher in the overdenture group than in the conventional denture group (P.0001). Age, gender, marital status, and income were not signicantly associated with ratings of general satisfaction. Furthermore, the implant group gave signicantly higher ratings on three additional measures of the prostheses (comfort, stability, and ease of chewing; P.05). Conclusion. A mandibular two-implant overdenture opposed by a maxillary conventional denture is a more satisfactory treatment than conventional dentures for edentulous middle-aged adults. Reprinted with permission of Quintessence Publishing

JUNE 2003

597