Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M O Hamada

Publications and source records attributed to M O Hamada.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

A randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-supported overdentures and conventional dentures in diabetic patients. Part IV: Comparisons of dietary intake.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: It is unclear whether the replacement of conventional mandibular dentures with implant-supported overdentures alters the diet and thus improves the nutritional intake of edentulous persons. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the pretreatment and posttreatment diets of edentulous diabetic patients who received new dentures with either a conventional complete mandibular denture (CD) or a mandibular implant-supported overdenture (IOD). MATERIAL AND METHODS: New dentures were made for 89 edentulous diabetic patients with acceptable metabolic control without insulin (NIT) or with insulin (IT). A randomized approach was used to assign 37 patients a mandibular CD and 52 patients a mandibular IOD supported by 2 cylindrical implants. Of the 89 patients, 58 submitted a dietary log for 7 consecutive days before treatment (PT) and 6 months after treatment completion (PTC). An average daily intake of 28 essential nutrients was determined for each patient at each time interval. Separate 2 x 2 x 2 repeated analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were performed for each nutrient to compare the means of the 2 denture groups (CD and IOD), 2 diabetic groups (NIT and IT), and 2 time intervals (PT and PTC). The intakes were also compared with the recommended daily allowance (RDA). RESULTS: ANOVAs for all 28 nutritional variables showed no main effect for either denture type or diabetic treatment. Time effects were seen for magnesium, potassium, copper, and monounsaturated fats. The PTC mean intake of the total sample (N = 58) decreased for all 3 minerals and increased for monounsaturated fats with study dentures. Post hoc tests showed the differences between PT and PTC means to be statistically significant for only magnesium (P=.043) and potassium (P=.015). The percentage of patients with PT intake 25% or more below the RDA ranged from 33% to 85% in the CD group and from 24% to 100% in the IOD group for the same 11 nutrients. PTC fiber intake deficiency was noted in almost all participants. Carbohydrate consumption was markedly lower than that recommended by the American Diabetic Association. CONCLUSION: As is often the case with elderly groups, this group of edentulous diabetic patients showed highly comprised nutritional intakes of fiber, vitamins, and minerals. The replacement of old dentures with new dentures that included either a mandibular CD or IOD did not alter patient diets such that the patients improved their nutritional intakes of essential micronutrients and macronutrients.

Aged↗
PubMed1999

Randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-supported overdentures and conventional dentures in diabetic patients. Part III: comparisons of patient satisfaction.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: There is insufficient evidence to indicate the functional superiority of mandibular implant-supported overdentures to justify their use in edentulous patients. PURPOSE: This study compared the benefits perceived by patients who received a new maxillary denture and a mandibular conventional denture (CD) and an implant-supported overdenture (IOD). METHOD: New maxillary and mandibular dentures were delivered to 89 diabetic denture wearers with clinically acceptable metabolic control who treated their diabetes either with insulin (IT) or without insulin (NIT). Of the 89 patients, 37 received maxillary and mandibular CDs and 52 received a maxillary CD and an IOD. Two questionnaires with categorical responses were used; the first contained 13 questions to ascertain a patient's absolute assessments of original dentures at entry and study dentures at 6- and 24-months after treatment completion; the second questionnaire had 11 questions that assessed the relative change perceived by patients with study dentures. Of the 78 patients who completed the posttreatment (PT) assessments at 6 months, 68 patients provided longitudinal data for questionnaire I and cross-sectional data for questionnaire II. In addition, 46 patients (18 CD and 28 IOD) also provided PT assessments at 24 months. RESULTS: Both mean scores and percentage distributions of longitudinal data for questionnaire I showed perceptual improvements with both types of study dentures. Improvements were higher in the IOD than in the CD group. Mean scores failed to show any significant differences between the 2 treatment groups. The only significant difference was found in the change in percentage distributions for perceptual chewing ability in favor of the IOD group. Even this advantage was lost at 24 months. With the comparative questionnaire, a higher percentage of patients in the IOD group than in the CD group perceived improvements with study dentures from their original dentures in chewing ability, chewing comfort, and denture security. However, mean differences were statistically significant in favor of the IOD group only for chewing ability and less difficulty to chew hard foods. CONCLUSION: The mandibular implant-supported overdenture offers same advantage in terms of perceived chewing function over the conventional denture.

Aged↗
PubMed1998

A randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-supported overdentures and conventional dentures in diabetic patients. Part II. Comparisons of masticatory performance.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Convincing evidence is lacking to demonstrate the functional superiority of mandibular implant-supported overdentures over conventional dentures. PURPOSE: This randomized clinical trial was conducted to compare masticatory functional effectiveness of mandibular implant-supported overdentures and conventional dentures in diabetic denture wearers with clinically acceptable metabolic control. METHODS: A total of 102 edentulous diabetic patients, treated with or without insulin, were randomized to receive a new maxillary and either a mandibular conventional denture or an implant-supported overdenture. Treatment was completed in 89 patients, 37 with conventional dentures and 52 with Hader bar-clip attachment overdentures supported by two IMZ implants. Besides data from medical and dental histories, oromaxillofacial examinations, and questionnaires, masticatory tests were performed by patients before and at 6 and 24 months after treatment completion. Although 78 patients (28 in the conventional, 50 in the overdenture group) performed tests at 6 months after treatment, 68 (25 in the conventional, 43 in the overdenture) had performance data for both entry and 6-month posttreatment intervals. RESULTS: The two treatment groups were highly comparable in terms of general characteristics, quality of original dentures, tissue support, and past denture experience. No significant differences were found between patients treated for diabetes with or without insulin. All four masticatory performance scores with original dentures were higher in the conventional denture group than the overdenture group. The posttreatment performance scores for the two treatment groups became similar because of the higher gains in the overdenture group. Patients with low initial performance scores showed greater posttreatment gains with both conventional dentures and overdentures. CONCLUSIONS: The implant-supported overdenture showed no significant advantage over the conventional denture for improving the ability to comminute food in this group of diabetic patients with higher than average initial functional levels observed for other groups of denture wearers in previous studies.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed1998

A randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-supported overdentures and conventional dentures in diabetic patients. Part I: Methodology and clinical outcomes.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Scientific evidence is lacking to support the general application of implant-supported mandibular overdentures. PURPOSE: This randomized clinical trial was undertaken to compare the efficacy of conventional mandibular and implant-supported overdentures in diabetic edentulous patients with clinically acceptable metabolic control. METHOD: A total of 102 diabetic patients, treated with or without insulin, were randomized to receive a new maxillary denture and either a conventional or an implant-supported removable mandibular overdenture. Treatment was completed for 89 patients, 37 with the conventional and 52 with implant-supported dentures. Detailed examinations, tests, and questionnaires were given before and at 6- and 24-months after treatment completion. Comparisons between the two treatment groups were made for treatment failures based on prespecifed criteria and the type and amount of maintenance care provided. RESULTS: The insulin and noninsulin treated groups were collapsed because of the lack of significant differences at entry. The conventional denture and implant-supported overdenture groups were similar in terms of general demographics, medical status, quality of their original dentures and denture support, several functional measures, and patient satisfaction. Treatment was judged to be successful in 56.9% of patients with conventional dentures and 72.1% with overdentures. This difference in success rate was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Patients with treatment failures in both groups required excessive maintenance care. Those with conventional dentures needed frequent denture base adjustments and relines, whereas those with overdentures required frequent clip replacements and repairs. Although significant improvements were seen with both treatment modalities, a higher percentage of patients with implant-supported overdentures than those with conventional dentures reported improvements in chewing comfort and moderate-to-complete overall satisfaction.

Alveolar Bone Loss↗
PubMedDate not supplied

A prosthodontic overview.

Osseointegrated implants have been in widespread use for more than 10 years. During this time, the design and use of implant-supported and implant-retained dental restorations have undergone steady change. This paper discusses this evolution and defines current trends in this exciting new discipline.

Alveolar Bone Loss↗