ArticleFrontiers in dentistry2020
Oral Health Related Quality of Life of Patients Using Conventional Dentures versus Implant-Supported Overdentures.
Article in Frontiers in dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Patient-Reported Satisfaction and Functional Outcomes with Implant-Supported Overdentures versus Conventional Complete Dentures.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL) of patients using conventional dentures versus implant-supported overdentures. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study evaluated the OHRQoL of 90 patients between 35 to 75 years who were selected from several public and private dental clinics in Tehran in 2018. Of all, 45 had conventional dentures of both jaws, and 45 had a mandibular overdenture supported by two implants at the site of mandibular canine teeth and a conventional maxillary denture. The OHRQoL of patients was determined using the Oral Health Impact Prfile-20 (OHIP-20). The questionnaire was translated to Persian, and its content validity and internal consistency were confirmed. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA, Mann-Whitney test, and independent t-test.
resultsIn the conventional denture group, 46.7% had good, 46.7% had moderate, and 6.6% had poor OHRQoL. These values were 55.6%, 37.8% and 6.6% in the overdenture group, respectively. Level of education had a significant correlation with the total score of OHIP-20 in both groups (P<0.05). But no significant association was noted between the residential status and gender of patients with different domains of OHRQoL (P>0.05) except for the psychological disability domain, which had a higher mean value in males with conventional dentures (P<0.05).
conclusionPatients with a mandibular overdenture supported by two implants at the site of canine teeth and a conventional maxillary denture had higher OHRQoL than patients with conventional dentures of both jaws.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.