286 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20662674)
1. A quality-of-life comparison between self-aligning and ball attachment systems for 2-implant-retained mandibular overdentures.
Bilhan H; Geckili O; Sulun T; Bilgin T
J Oral Implantol; 2011 Mar; 37 Spec No():167-73. PubMed ID: 20662674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Patient satisfaction with two designs of implant supported removable overdentures; ball attachment and magnets.
Ellis JS; Burawi G; Walls A; Thomason JM
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2009 Nov; 20(11):1293-8. PubMed ID: 19832769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Randomized, prospective, clinical evaluation of prosthodontic modalities for mandibular implant overdenture treatment.
Burns DR; Unger JW; Coffey JP; Waldrop TC; Elswick RK
J Prosthet Dent; 2011 Jul; 106(1):12-22. PubMed ID: 21723989
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of ball and telescopic crown attachments in implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a 5-year prospective study.
Krennmair G; Seemann R; Weinländer M; Piehslinger E
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(3):598-606. PubMed ID: 21691608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The effect of attachment type and implant number on satisfaction and quality of life of mandibular implant-retained overdenture wearers.
Mumcu E; Bilhan H; Geckili O
Gerodontology; 2012 Jun; 29(2):e618-23. PubMed ID: 21726276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A comparison of three different attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: one-year report.
Kleis WK; Kämmerer PW; Hartmann S; Al-Nawas B; Wagner W
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2010 Sep; 12(3):209-18. PubMed ID: 19416278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A clinical trial of patient satisfaction and prosthodontic needs with ball and bar attachments for implant-retained complete overdentures: three-year results.
MacEntee MI; Walton JN; Glick N
J Prosthet Dent; 2005 Jan; 93(1):28-37. PubMed ID: 15623995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Patient satisfaction and preference with magnet, bar-clip, and ball-socket retained mandibular implant overdentures: a cross-over clinical trial.
Cune M; van Kampen F; van der Bilt A; Bosman F
Int J Prosthodont; 2005; 18(2):99-105. PubMed ID: 15889656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Five-year clinical results of immediately loaded dental implants using mandibular overdentures.
Alfadda SA; Attard NJ; David LA
Int J Prosthodont; 2009; 22(4):368-73. PubMed ID: 19639074
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Oral health status and treatment satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures: a randomized clinical trial in a senior population.
Awad MA; Lund JP; Shapiro SH; Locker D; Klemetti E; Chehade A; Savard A; Feine JS
Int J Prosthodont; 2003; 16(4):390-6. PubMed ID: 12956494
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or telescopic crown attachments: a 3-year prospective study.
Krennmair G; Weinländer M; Krainhöfner M; Piehslinger E
Int J Prosthodont; 2006; 19(2):164-70. PubMed ID: 16602365
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Differences in impact of patient and prosthetic characteristics on oral health-related quality of life among implant-retained overdenture wearers.
Preciado A; Del Río J; Suárez-García MJ; Montero J; Lynch CD; Castillo-Oyagüe R
J Dent; 2012 Oct; 40(10):857-65. PubMed ID: 22819956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Attachment systems for mandibular single-implant overdentures: an in vitro retention force investigation on different designs.
Alsabeeha N; Atieh M; Swain MV; Payne AG
Int J Prosthodont; 2010; 23(2):160-6. PubMed ID: 20305857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Patient satisfaction with different types of implant-retained overdentures in the edentate mandible].
Cune MS; van Kampen FM; van der Bilt A
Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 2006 Oct; 113(10):401-7. PubMed ID: 17058761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Patient preference and satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or locator attachments: a crossover clinical trial.
Krennmair G; Seemann R; Fazekas A; Ewers R; Piehslinger E
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2012; 27(6):1560-8. PubMed ID: 23189311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Correction of nonparallel implants for an implant-retained overdenture.
Nunes DB; da Silva P; Pereira-Cenci T; Garbin CA; Schuh C; Boscato N
Gen Dent; 2010; 58(4):e168-71. PubMed ID: 20591765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A randomized clinical trial comparing patient satisfaction and prosthetic outcomes with mandibular overdentures retained by one or two implants.
Walton JN; Glick N; Macentee MI
Int J Prosthodont; 2009; 22(4):331-9. PubMed ID: 19639067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-retained overdentures and conventional dentures among elderly edentulous patients: satisfaction and quality of life.
Assunção WG; Zardo GG; Delben JA; Barão VA
Gerodontology; 2007 Dec; 24(4):235-8. PubMed ID: 17999736
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Cement-retained bar attachment system for implant-retained mandibular overdentures.
Ozcelik TB; Ozcelik O; Pektas ZO
J Prosthet Dent; 2007 May; 97(5):315-7. PubMed ID: 17547953
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. The impact of conventional and implant supported prostheses on social and sexual activities in edentulous adults Results from a randomized trial 2 months after treatment.
Heydecke G; Thomason JM; Lund JP; Feine JS
J Dent; 2005 Sep; 33(8):649-57. PubMed ID: 16139696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
