Background: Nowadays mandibular tooth overdentures retained by bar attachment are used on a wide scale as a substitute for the conventional complete denture thus further studies are required to verify this replacement.Methodology: Fourteen patients were randomly categorized into two equal groups. In the first group (Group I) patients received mandibular tooth-supported overdentures retained by metal bar attachment with plastic clip material while in the second group (Group II) patients received mandibular tooth-supported overdentures retained by bar attachment with PEEK clip material. All patients were scheduled for recall visits and pocket depth of around abutment was recorded at the time of loading, six months, and twelve months.Results: Regarding pocket depth: (Group I) was significantly higher than (Group II) after 6 and 12 months. Data were coded and entered using the statistical package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 28 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Data were summarized using mean and standard deviation. Comparisons between groups were done using an unpaired t-test. Comparison over time within the same group was done using paired t-test. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Conclusion:Within the limitations of this study: Tooth-supported overdenture retained by bar attachment with plastic clip is less recommended than tooth-supported overdenture retained by bar attachment with PEEK clip.

Aim:The aim of this within-subject study was to evaluate and compare clinical denture base deformation with two types of denture base reinforcement for telescopic implant retained overdentures.Materials and methods: Six completely edentulous participants received two implants in the canine region of the mandible and the implants were connected to the overdentures with resilient telescopic attachments. Each patient received 2 types of denture reinforcement for the mandibular overdentures; 1) metal reinforced overdentures, 2) PEEK reinforced overdentures. Four straingauges were adhered to the lingual polished surface of each denture abutment top (C1 and C3), and 5 mm below abutment top (C2 and C4). Strain registrations were performed during maximum voluntary clenching. Results:The measured strains and implant positions C1 and C3 were tensile in nature and the measured strains at implant positions C2 and C4 were compressive in nature. The highest microstrain was noted at C3, followed by C1, then C2, and the lowest strain was noted was with C4 for both groups. There was no significant difference in recorded microstrains between C1 and C3 or between C2 and C4. For all strain gauge positions, PEEK reinforced overdentures recorded significantly higher microstrains than metal-reinforced overdentures. Conclusion:Within the limitation of this short term cross over trial, cobalt-chromium metal reinforcement for mandibular implant assisted overdentures is recommended than PEEK reinforcement as it reduced denture base strains and deformation during maximum voluntary clenching.

Bone fracture has become more common in this era of vehicular modernization. Internal fixation has been used in the treatment of such cases. The use of screw and plate in internal fixation has been proven to provide more stability to fracture to promote better healing. The use of screw also carries certain risk such as self-loosening that can cause non-union and prolong healing. The complication of selfloosening is studied to comprehend the danger of self-loosening in screw-bone implant. The review on self-loosening in bolted joint is done in this paper to gain better understanding on the nature of self-loosening phenomena. The factor that affects the screw selfloosening in bone is further studied in the screw-bone implant environment. The identification of the screw loosening can be done with radiography, CT scan, MRI and ultrasound. This article have done a brief review on the complication of screw self-loosening, the cause of screw loosening in bolted joint and screw-bone implant and the assessment of screw loosening done by ultrasound and radiography.

Background Nowadays implant-retained overdentures retained by bar attachment are used on a wide scale as a substitute for the conventional complete denture thus further studies are required to verify this replacement.Methodology Fourteen completely edentulous patients were randomly categorized into two equal groups. In the control group (Group I) patients received implant-retained overdentures retained by bar attachment with retentive plastic clips, while in the test group (Group II) patients received implant-retained overdentures retained by bar attachment with retentive clips made of Poly Ether Ketone Ketone (PEKK) material. All the patients were scheduled for recall visits and probing depth was recorded at the time of loading, six months, and twelve months.Results: Regarding probing depth: (Group I) was significantly higher than (Group II) after 6 and 12 months. Data were coded and entered using the statistical package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 28 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Data were summarized using mean and standard deviation. Comparisons between groups were done using an unpaired t-test. Comparison over time within the same group was done using paired t-test. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Conclusion:Within the limitations of this study, Implant retained overdentures retained by bar attachment with plastic retentive clip material are less recommended than implant-retained overdentures retained by bar attachment with PEKK retentive clip material.

No abstract