No abstract

No abstract

Objectives This in vitro study aimed to compare changes in retentive force due to cyclic dislodging of three novel un‐splinted attachments. Materials and Methods Experimental models simulating a mandibular two‐implant overdenture situation, with implants positioned with various interimplant discrepancies (0°, 20°, 40°, and 60°) were fabricated. Three attachment systems were tested, “N”: a straight or 15°‐angulated stud; “L”: a sole straight stud; and “C”: a straight or individually angulated stud. All models underwent wet testing and were subjected to 10,000 insertion–removal cycles in a universal testing machine. The mean retentive forces were calculated for cycles 10, 100, 1,000, 5,000, and 10,000. Multiple mixed‐effects linear regression models were applied for statistical analyses (⍺ < 0.05). Results “N” demonstrated an increasing retention until 1,000 cycles, which subsequently diminished back to its initial retention at 10,000 cycles, showing no significant loss during the entire experiment. Statistical models demonstrated no effect of implant angulation on retention, except for 60° after 10,000 cycles (p < .05). “L” showed an early peak at 100 cycles and did not significantly lose retentive force before 5,000 cycles. Angulations of 40° or higher were shown to lead to lower retentive forces (0° vs. 40° cycle 5,000: p < .05; 0° vs. 60° cycle 100: p < .05, ≥cycle 1,000: p < .001). “C” showed stable retentive forces with no significant loss only at 10,000 cycles (all angles: p < .001) or 5,000 cycles (0° vs. 60°: p < .05). Conclusions All systems showed retentive forces promising successful clinical use in implant overdentures, even in situations with extremely angulated implants. Specific abutments compensating interimplant angulation maintain retention longer in situations with high axe divergencies.

No abstract

Objectives This study aims to assess caregivers’ knowledge, perception and perceived barriers as well as their daily usual practice concerning oral care provision in a geriatric hospital. Methods A semi‐structured questionnaire was developed and administered to caregivers in a geriatric ward. Furthermore, oral care delivery to dependent and independent patients was clinically observed. Results One hundred and fifty‐two caregivers (60% nurses, 40% nursing aids) completed the survey (78% response rate). Clinical oral care was observed in 97 inpatients. Observations revealed that brushing was done in 94% of opportunities in independent patients but in only 55% of dependent patients. This corresponded to the frequency indicated in the questionnaire for independent elders (97%, n.s.), whereas it was significantly different for dependent elders (89%, P < .001). 95% of caregivers stated in the questionnaire never verifying self‐administered oral care, whereas 12.3% were actually observed verifying intraorally its efficiency (P = .07 chi‐squared test). 71% of the respondents stated storing the prostheses dry, and 8% stated that they reinserted it after cleaning. Caregivers’ observation revealed that 35.1% of prostheses were reinserted in the mouth, indicating a significantly higher rate than in the questionnaire (P < .05). Respondents felt that their training to perform oral hygiene measures was suboptimal (VAS 48 ± 34.4). Patients verbally refusing oral care were stated as a barrier by 14% of respondents and were witnessed in 15.6% of observation opportunities (n.s). Conclusion Various measures, such as hospital health policy, improved logistics or advanced hands‐on training, might help to converge the clinical practice towards the theoretical knowledge.