Anthropometric 2 groups edentulous data, Blood MORAIS, Implant supported Randomised Baseline and 6 and nutrients, HEYDECKE, 70.1 (no explanation 33 mandibular dentures 56 controlled 12 months General Yes PAWLIUK, LUND 69.6 on OHQoL Conventional dentures trial up satisfaction AND FEINE (2003) measure used) Nutrition, chewing ability. Schedule for the Evaluation OZHAYAT, Group of edentulous of GOTFREDSEN, adults seeking both fixed Longitudinal Pre-treatment, 2- Individual 34 22 67.5 OHIP - 49 No ELVERDAM AND and removable observational month follow up Quality of Life OWALL (2010a) conventional prostheses Direct – Weighing SEIQoL-DW, Schedule for the Evaluation OZHAYAT, Before start of the of Group of edentulous GOTFREDSEN, Longitudinal treatment and at Individual 35 adults seeking oral 60 60 49 No ELVERDAM, OWALL observational four weeks Quality of Life rehabilitation (2010b) up Direct – Weighing SEIQoL-DW, 3 groups Effect of 2 groups denture Pre-treatment and OZHAYAT AND Longitudinal different 36 wearers based on type 307 60.8 1-4 months post OHIP-49 Yes GOTFREDSEN (2012) observational prosthodontic of prostheses treatment treatment 1 group as a control 2 groups of denture PEARSON, GIBSON, wearers Evaluation of a DAVIS, GELBIER Study group Randomised Pre-treatment and 37 126 55 (39-76) OIDP denture No AND ROBINSON (domiciliary service) control trial 3 months follow up provision (2007) Control group (conventional methods) To check if PISANI, SEGUNDO, Individuals wearing Prior to relining the relining BALBINO, DE complete dentures with Longitudinal OHIP EDENT – 38 33 68.2 (10.2) denture and 3 dentures SOUZA, PARANHOS less retentive observational Brazilian version months follow up improves AND SILVA (2012) mandibular dentures OHQoL
33 MORAIS, HEYDECKE, PAWLIUK, LUND AND FEINE (2003) 2 groups edentulous Implant supported mandibular dentures Conventional dentures 56 70.1 69.6 Randomised controlled trial Baseline and 6 and 12 months (no explanation on OHQoL measure used) Anthropometric data, Blood nutrients, General satisfaction Nutrition, chewing ability. Yes 34 OZHAYAT, GOTFREDSEN, ELVERDAM AND OWALL (2010a) Group of edentulous adults seeking both fixed and removable conventional prostheses 22 67.5 Longitudinal observational Pre-treatment, month follow up OHIP - 49 Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life – Direct Weighing SEIQoL-DW, No 35 OZHAYAT, GOTFREDSEN, ELVERDAM, OWALL (2010b) Group of edentulous adults seeking oral rehabilitation 60 60 Longitudinal observational Before start of the treatment and at four weeks 49 Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life – Direct Weighing SEIQoL-DW, No 36 OZHAYAT AND GOTFREDSEN (2012) 3 groups 2 groups denture wearers based on type of prostheses 1 group as a control 307 60.8 Longitudinal observational Pre-treatment and 1-4 months post treatment OHIP-49 Effect of different prosthodontic treatment Yes 37 PEARSON, GIBSON, DAVIS, GELBIER AND ROBINSON (2007) 2 groups of denture wearers Study group (domiciliary service) Control group (conventional methods) 126 55 (39-76) Randomised control trial Pre-treatment and 3 months follow up OIDP Evaluation of a denture provision No 38 PISANI, SEGUNDO, BALBINO, DE SOUZA, PARANHOS AND SILVA (2012) Individuals wearing complete dentures with less retentive mandibular dentures 33 68.2 (10.2) Longitudinal observational Prior to relining the denture and 3 months follow up OHIP EDENT – Brazilian version To check if relining dentures improves OHQoL up up 2-