Fabrication of new restorations with a consideration of oral hygiene

Ahuja, Swati; Wicks, Russell; Selecman, Audrey

doi:10.4103/0972-4052.158084

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has several advantageous characteristics, including resiliency and self-alignment (making it easy for the patient to align and seat the prosthesis in a repeatable path of insertion) (5). Furthermore, it is characterized by dual retention (internal and external thus, providing greater degree of retention) (6-8), ease of replacement of the nylon-retentive inserts (9, 10), maintenance of oral hygiene (11), and a low-profile (7). A next-generation LOCATOR attachment system (LOCATOR R-Tx Removable Attachment System) corrects up to 30° correction per implant and 60 o between implants (5).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Implant-Assisted Mandibular Overdenture With New Metal to Metal Interface Attachment System (In Vitro Study)

Ramadan

Mohamed

Gepreel

2020

Alexandria Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION: A well-constructed two-implant-assisted mandibular overdenture can be a successful treatment option for completely edentulous patients as it helps improving the oral function and patient satisfaction through elimination of the fear of dislodgment during speech or mastication. Various attachment systems can be used for retaining mandibular overdentures such as bar, ball and socket, OT equator and locators. A new attachment system with metal to metal interface named Titach has evolved. During mastication, loads are transferred to alveolar bone surrounding the implants. OBJECTIVES: This study was done to compare the stress transmitted to peri-implant tissues of implant-assisted mandibular overdenture using two different attachment designs; Titach attachment and locator attachment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A completely edentulous epoxy resin mandibular model was used in which two parallel dental implants were inserted at the canine region bilaterally. Sixteen mandibular implant-assisted overdentures were constructed forming two groups; each with different attachment design. Group I received 8 pairs of Titach attachment, while group II received 8 pairs of locator attachment. The difference in stress distribution was measured using strain gauges and compared between the two studied groups. Vertical load and oblique load (30 o and 45 o) of 50 and 100 N using the universal testing machine were applied bilaterally on the central occlusal fossae of mandibular first molars. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between group I and II upon application of vertical loading 50, 100N and 30 o oblique loading 50 N. However, group I showed lower strain values upon application of 30 o oblique loading 100N, 45 o oblique loading 50N and 100N. CONCLUSIONS: Titach attachment with metal to metal interface showed less strain values with favourable stress distribution when compared to zest anchor locator attachment with nylon interface for implant-assisted mandibular overdenture.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Implant-Assisted Mandibular Overdenture With New Metal to Metal Interface Attachment System (In Vitro Study)

Ramadan

Mohamed

Gepreel

2020

Alexandria Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, Patients with poor oral hygiene were excluded to avoid the risk of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. (29) Standard clinical and laboratory techniques were followed for the construction of the dentures for all patients. Also, same materials were used as feasible as an attempt to eliminate any factor that might affect the results of this study.…”

Section: Discussion Of Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect Of Using Two Splinted Mini-Implants Versus Two Conventional Implants Retaining Mandibular Overdenture On Crestal Bone Loss

Abdallah

2018

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: was to compare the marginal bone loss around two splinted Mini-implants and two conventional implants retaining mandibular overdenture.Material and methods: Fourteen completely edentulous male patients were selected from those attended the out-patient clinic of Removable Prosthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry-Ain Shams University to participate in this study. Based on the cone beam computed tomographic (CBCT) assessment, the selected patients were divided into two equal groups: Group (I):Patients received conventional complete maxillary dentures opposed by mandibular overdentures supported and retained by two splinted Mini-implants of 2.5mm diameter and 12 mm length in the interforaminal region. Group (II): Patients received conventional complete maxillary dentures opposed by mandibular overdentures supported and retained by two conventional implants of 4mm diameter and 12mm length placed in the lateral-canine regions. CBCT records were obtained upon Overdenture Insertion (Baseline), Six Months, Twelve Months after insertion. The Mesial, Distal, Buccal and Lingual marginal bone heights around the implants were evaluated, using the linear measurement system of the software with flat panel detector supplied by the cone beam CT. Results: Peri-Implant Bone Loss in Group (I):Six months following denture insertion calculated means of the measured bone loss for the Mesial surfaces were 0.55 ± 0.1 mm, for the Distal surfaces were 0.68 ± 0.03 mm, for the Buccal surfaces were 0.53 ± 0.12 mm and for the Lingual surfaces were 0.51±0.03mm.The calculated means of the measured bone loss was statistically significant at P < 0.05. At twelve months following denture insertion, the calculated means of the measured bone loss for the Mesial surfaces were 0.68 ± 0.1 mm, for the Distal surfaces were 0.87 ± 0.7 mm, for the Buccal surfaces were 0.69 ± 0.1mm and for the lingual surface 0.67± 0.03mm. The calculated means of the measured bone loss were statistically significant ( P ≤ 0.05). Peri-Implant Bone Loss in Group (II):Six months following denture insertion calculated means of the measured bone loss for the Mesial surfaces were 0.51 ± 0.10 mm, for the Distal surfaces were 0.62 ± 0.08 mm, for the Buccal surfaces were 0.51 ± 0.09 mm and for the Lingual surfaces were 0.50 ± 0.09mm. The calculated means of the measured bone loss were statistically significant (P ≤ 0.05).

show abstract

“…The patient was given detailed home care instructions to maintain the prostheses and oral hygiene and placed on a biannual recall schedule. [ 2 ] [ Figure 9 ].…”

Section: Case Reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[123] However, implants in the anterior maxilla may have to be placed with a labial inclination (tilted) owing to the proclination of the premaxilla making it challenging to achieve parallelism between anterior and posterior implants, and thereby necessitating the use of angled abutments. [4]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nonsplinted attachments (such as ERA or locators) are preferred as attachments for removable dental prostheses as they are more economical, less technique sensitive, easier to clean, repair, and maintain than splinted (bar and clip) attachment systems, but they work favorably only when implants in the arch are placed parallel to each other. [ 1 2 3 ] However, implants in the anterior maxilla may have to be placed with a labial inclination (tilted) owing to the proclination of the premaxilla making it challenging to achieve parallelism between anterior and posterior implants, and thereby necessitating the use of angled abutments. [ 4 ]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Managing maxillary proclination with novel designed angulated implants

Ahuja

Egbert²,

Jain

et al. 2017

J Indian Prosthodont Soc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implant-supported removable dental prostheses may be supported by a variety of splinted (bar and clip) attachment systems or nonsplinted abutment-based attachments (ball, magnets, and resilient stud attachments such as locators [Zest Anchors], ERA [Sterngold], and nonresilient-stud attachments such as ANKYLOS SynCone [Dentsply Implants]). Nonsplinted attachments are preferred as they are more economical, less technique sensitive, easier to clean, repair, and maintain than splinted (bar and clip) attachment systems, but they work favorably only when implants in the arch are placed parallel to each other. Often implants in the anterior maxilla have to be placed with a labial inclination (due to the proclination of the premaxilla), resulting in lack of parallelism between the anterior and posterior implants, making it challenging to fabricate a removable dental prostheses supported by nonsplinted attachments, and necessitating the use of angled abutments. Recently, a novel implant design with a 12° restorative platform angulation has been introduced by Southern Implants (Co-axis, Keystone Dental, Inc., Burlington, MA, USA). These new angulated implants aid in minimizing the divergence between the anterior and posterior maxillary implants without using angled abutments. The purpose of this article was to report a case utilizing the novel angulated implants (Co-axis, Keystone Dental, Inc., Burlington, MA, USA) in the premaxilla for fabrication of maxillary removable dental prostheses supported and retained by nonsplinted attachments.

show abstract

Fabrication of new restorations with a consideration of oral hygiene

Cited by 9 publications

References 10 publications

Evaluation of Implant-Assisted Mandibular Overdenture With New Metal to Metal Interface Attachment System (In Vitro Study)

Evaluation of Implant-Assisted Mandibular Overdenture With New Metal to Metal Interface Attachment System (In Vitro Study)

Effect Of Using Two Splinted Mini-Implants Versus Two Conventional Implants Retaining Mandibular Overdenture On Crestal Bone Loss

Managing maxillary proclination with novel designed angulated implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About