Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The primary aim of this study was to compare the acoustic sound quality of edentulous patients rehabilitated with two-implant overdentures or the all-on-4 concept. The secondary aims were to evaluate the effect of implant and prosthetic success on acoustics.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implant overdenture group | In the control session, participants' acoustic sound quality, implant and prosthesis success will be measured. | ||
| All-on-4 group | In the control session, participants' acoustic sound quality, implant and prosthesis success will be measured. |
Not provided
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Acoustic voice quality index | The acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI) measures the perceived quality of a voice signal. It is based on evaluating several acoustic parameters that are known to be related to the perceived quality of speech. These parameters include measures of loudness, pitch, and spectral tilt, as well as measures of the presence of noise and other distortions in the signal. Acoustic voice quality will be evaluated in accordance with the AVQI index. During the control session, two separate voice recordings will be made with and without the participants' dentures in the mouth and transferred to the software. The score obtained according to the AVQI index will be used for statistical analysis between groups. | At the follow-up session (approximately one year after delivery of the prosthesis) |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Implant success | Implant success will be defined according to the following criteria:
|
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Patients with all-on-4 or two-implant overdentures whose surgery and prosthesis were performed at Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry clinics
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marmara University School of Dentistry | Recruiting | Istanbul | 34854 | Turkey (Türkiye) |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 27853193 | Background | Tyrovolas S, Koyanagi A, Panagiotakos DB, Haro JM, Kassebaum NJ, Chrepa V, Kotsakis GA. Population prevalence of edentulism and its association with depression and self-rated health. Sci Rep. 2016 Nov 17;6:37083. doi: 10.1038/srep37083. | |
| 8887798 | Background | Marcus PA, Joshi A, Jones JA, Morgano SM. Complete edentulism and denture use for elders in New England. J Prosthet Dent. 1996 Sep;76(3):260-6. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(96)90169-9. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D007575 | Jaw, Edentulous |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D007571 | Jaw Diseases |
| D009140 | Musculoskeletal Diseases |
| D009057 | Stomatognathic Diseases |
| D009066 | Mouth, Edentulous |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| At the follow-up session (approximately one year after delivery of the prosthesis) |
| Prosthetic Success | The success of the prosthetic treatment will be evaluated according to the criteria set by Awad and Feine. Participants will be asked about their overall satisfaction with their prosthesis. Also;
Participants will rate each item on a 10 cm visual analog scale, where the anchor words are "not at all satisfied" for zero and "completely satisfied" for 10. Participants will be asked to draw a vertical line at the point on the scale that best reflects their responses, where higher scores indicate greater satisfaction. | At the follow-up session (approximately one year after delivery of the prosthesis) |
| 32866427 | Background | Romandini M, Baima G, Antonoglou G, Bueno J, Figuero E, Sanz M. Periodontitis, Edentulism, and Risk of Mortality: A Systematic Review with Meta-analyses. J Dent Res. 2021 Jan;100(1):37-49. doi: 10.1177/0022034520952401. Epub 2020 Aug 31. |
| 12562885 | Background | Nowjack-Raymer RE, Sheiham A. Association of edentulism and diet and nutrition in US adults. J Dent Res. 2003 Feb;82(2):123-6. doi: 10.1177/154405910308200209. |
| 25146182 | Background | Slade GD, Akinkugbe AA, Sanders AE. Projections of U.S. Edentulism prevalence following 5 decades of decline. J Dent Res. 2014 Oct;93(10):959-65. doi: 10.1177/0022034514546165. Epub 2014 Aug 21. |
| 11807477 | Background | Douglass CW, Watson AJ. Future needs for fixed and removable partial dentures in the United States. J Prosthet Dent. 2002 Jan;87(1):9-14. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2002.121204. |
| 12691645 | Background | Malo P, Rangert B, Nobre M. "All-on-Four" immediate-function concept with Branemark System implants for completely edentulous mandibles: a retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5 Suppl 1:2-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00010.x. |
| 10522779 | Background | Zitzmann NU, Scharer P, Marinello CP. Factors influencing the success of GBR. Smoking, timing of implant placement, implant location, bone quality and provisional restoration. J Clin Periodontol. 1999 Oct;26(10):673-82. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.1999.261007.x. |
| 11251667 | Background | Jacobs R, Manders E, Van Looy C, Lembrechts D, Naert I, van Steenberghe D. Evaluation of speech in patients rehabilitated with various oral implant-supported prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001 Apr;12(2):167-73. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012002167.x. |
| 24841668 | Background | Lu FL, Matteson S. Speech tasks and interrater reliability in perceptual voice evaluation. J Voice. 2014 Nov;28(6):725-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2014.01.018. Epub 2014 May 17. |
| 15759572 | Background | Umapathy K, Krishnan S, Parsa V, Jamieson DG. Discrimination of pathological voices using a time-frequency approach. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2005 Mar;52(3):421-30. doi: 10.1109/TBME.2004.842962. |
| 36592050 | Background | Asiaee M, Nourbakhsh M, Vahedian-Azimi A, Zare M, Jafari R, Atashi SS, Keramatfar A. The feasibility of using acoustic measures for predicting the Total Opacity Scores of chest computed tomography scans in patients with COVID-19. Clin Linguist Phon. 2024 Mar;38(2):97-115. doi: 10.1080/02699206.2022.2160659. Epub 2023 Jan 2. |
| 36192290 | Background | Shabnam S, Pushpavathi M, Gopi Sankar R, Sridharan KV, Vasanthalakshmi MS. A Comprehensive Application for Grading Severity of Voice Based on Acoustic Voice Quality Index v.02.03. J Voice. 2025 Jan;39(1):287.e1-287.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2022.08.013. Epub 2022 Oct 1. |
| 30203473 | Background | Barsties V Latoszek B, Ulozaite-Staniene N, Petrauskas T, Uloza V, Maryn Y. Diagnostic Accuracy of Dysphonia Classification of DSI and AVQI. Laryngoscope. 2019 Mar;129(3):692-698. doi: 10.1002/lary.27350. Epub 2018 Sep 10. |
| 31474432 | Background | Englert M, Barsties V Latoszek B, Maryn Y, Behlau M. Validation of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index, Version 03.01, to the Brazilian Portuguese Language. J Voice. 2021 Jan;35(1):160.e15-160.e21. doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2019.07.024. Epub 2019 Aug 29. |
| 31582330 | Background | Faham M, Laukkanen AM, Ikavalko T, Rantala L, Geneid A, Holmqvist-Jamsen S, Ruusuvirta K, Pirila S. Acoustic Voice Quality Index as a Potential Tool for Voice Screening. J Voice. 2021 Mar;35(2):226-232. doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2019.08.017. Epub 2019 Sep 30. |
| 32962941 | Background | Yesilli-Puzella G, Tadihan-Ozkan E, Maryn Y. Validation and Test-Retest Reliability of Acoustic Voice Quality Index Version 02.06 in the Turkish Language. J Voice. 2022 Sep;36(5):736.e25-736.e32. doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.08.021. Epub 2020 Sep 20. |
| D009059 |
| Mouth Diseases |
| D014076 | Tooth Diseases |