No abstract

The hypothesis of this 5-y randomized clinical trial was that there would be no significant difference in the satisfaction of edentulous participants with removable complete overdentures attached to 1 or 2 mandibular implants. Secondary aims were to test changes in satisfaction between and within the groups from baseline to 5 y and differences between the groups in implant survival and prosthodontic maintenance over 5 y. Each of the 86 participants (mean age, 67 y) was randomly allocated to receive either 1 implant in the midline (group 1) or 2 implants in the canine areas (group 2) attached to a mandibular overdenture opposing a maxillary complete denture. Satisfaction was self-assessed by participants on a visual analog scale at baseline prior to implants, as well as at 2 mo and 1, 3, and 5 y with implant overdentures, whereas implant survival and prosthodontic maintenance were assessed by clinical examination. After 5 y, 29 participants in group 1 and 33 in group 2 were available, with most dropouts due to death. Satisfaction with the implant denture after 5 y was significantly (P < 0.001) higher than at baseline in both groups and remained with no significant difference (P = 0.32) between the groups. No implants failed in group 1 but 5 failed before loading in 4 participants in group 2. Most participants required maintenance or occasionally denture replacement, and although differences between the groups were not statistically significant, group 1 experienced almost twice as many fractured dentures usually adjacent to the implant attachment. We conclude that there were no significant differences after 5 y in satisfaction or survival of implants with mandibular overdentures retained by 1 implant or 2 implants. Additional research is required to confirm long-term treatment effectiveness of single-implant dentures and the implications of prosthetic maintenance with implant overdentures (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02117856).

No abstract

No abstract

Open-ended interviews were conducted with 109 individuals. These included: administrators, staff, dental personnel, residents, and family members, associated with 12 long-term-care (LTC) facilities to contrast different human resource and organizational strategies for managing the delivery of oral health care to the elderly residents. A multiple case-study analysis revealed that no particular organizational strategy was ideal, although three important components--oral hygiene, diagnostic assessments, and dental treatment--were common to all. The dental personnel everywhere believed that oral health in the midst of other conflicting priorities received inadequate attention, while the administrators and staff acknowledged that they were weak at recognizing oral disorders and assisting with oral hygiene. In all, the interviews offered a portrait of the conflicting priorities associated with LTC, and they provide practical insights to successful strategies of care in this population.

No abstract

A pyramid-based educational scheme with nurses and care-aides did not improve the oral health of frail elders in this urban sample of LTC facilities.

The objective of this study was to explore access to dental care for low-income communities from the perspectives of low-income people, dentists and related health and social service-providers. The case study included 60 interviews involving, low-income adults (N = 41), dentists (N = 6) and health and social service-providers (N = 13). The analysis explores perceptions of need, evidence of unmet needs, and three dimensions of access--affordability, availability and acceptability. The study describes the sometimes poor fit between private dental practice and the public oral health needs of low-income individuals. Dentists and low-income patients alike explained how the current model of private dental practice and fee-for-service payments do not work well because of patients' concerns about the cost of dentistry, dentists' reluctance to treat this population, and the cultural incompatibility of most private practices to the needs of low-income communities. There is a poor fit between private practice dentistry, public dental benefits and the oral health needs of low-income communities, and other responses are needed to address the multiple dimensions of access to dentistry, including community dental clinics sensitive to the special needs of low-income people.