implant-supported prostheses. Materials and Methods: Sixty-nine patients who were referred for postgraduate prosthetic treatment at Wits Dental School completed a self-report inventory of items related to their dentures in current use. Conventional dentures were fabricated for all subjects. Those patients who could not adapt to conventional complete denture treatment were referred for treatment with implant-supported prostheses provided that they conformed with the recommended criteria for this treatment modality. Results: Analysis of the inventory of pretreatment denture complaints yielded variables that differentiated between the group who remained with conventional dentures and the group that was referred for implants. Significant variables were the period that a mandibular denture was used before new dentures were requested (P = 0.025); the period that a maxillary denture was used before further treatment was sought (P = 0.03); the discarding of a mandibular denture (P = 0.035); and pain complaints related to maxillary dentures (P = 0.045). A logistic regression model was used to compare the clinical division of the sample with that determined by the mathematic model. Sixty-six percent of the subjects who accepted conventional treatment and 69% of implant patients corresponded for both classifications. Conclusion: The authors conclude that pretreatment denture complaints can be useful diagnostic aids for evaluating patients who are likely to benefit from implant-supported prostheses.

Various lengths of cantilevers for fixed implant-supported prostheses have been recommended in the literature. No scientific data are available for selecting specific lengths, and different views are reported. Authors contend that longer cantilevers lead to increased risk of failure. This study examined survival of fixed implant-supported prostheses using different cantilever lengths and offers clinical support for the contention.