Surgical rehabilitation provides a better line of treatment in improving the QOL for patients with maxillary defects. On the other hand, prosthetic has proved effectiveness in the immediate post-surgical times as temporary strategy, and it has represented a good alternative when the surgical obturation is compromised.

Background. Many patients suffer from lack of retention of conventional mandibular overdentures due to loss of clip retention over time. Computer-aided design-computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) milled polyether ether ketone (PEEK) materials may be used for the construction of retentive housing and clips for improving retention of implant-supported overdentures. Objective. To compare retention and patient satisfaction of implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained by conventional nylon clip and metal housings for ball attachments versus PEEK clip and housings. Methods. Twenty-two participants were divided into 2 equal groups (n = 11). The conventional group received implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained by metal housings and nylon retentive elements, while the PEEK group received implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained by PEEK retentive elements and housings. The PEEK retentive elements were made using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM). The evaluation included measuring the retention by applying a gradual pulling up force by force meter and patient satisfaction with a 7-point visual analog scale (VAS) at overdenture insertion and 3, 6, and 12 months subsequently by a research interviewer. Results. The PEEK group showed statistically significantly increased retention force ( P < 0.05 ) at the time of insertion (37.6/17.79) and after 3 months (33.9/16.78), 6 months (32.7/15.97), and 12 months (31.65/13.05). The conventional group had a statistically significantly higher mean overall satisfaction ( P < 0.05 ) at the time of insertion (65/82.18). No statistically significant difference was found after 3 months (87.81/84.72). The PEEK group showed statistically significantly higher mean overall satisfaction ( P < 0.05 ) after 6 months (86.36/80.18) and 12 months (85.45/79.54). Conclusions. According to the results of this study, the PEEK retentive material provided more retention than did the conventional material and led to improved patient satisfaction. The study was registered at clinical trials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05079048).

Objective This article evaluates the success of prosthetic rehabilitation of thin wiry ridge and implants placed simultaneously in splitted ridge both clinically and radiographically. Materials and Methods Twenty-one participants were enrolled of which 13 patients (8 females and 5 males) were suffering from maxillary ridge atrophy and 8 patients (5 females and 3 males) had mandibular ridge atrophy; a total of 42 implants were performed using the ridge expansion technique. The expansion was performed using the conventional disk technique, piezoelectric corticotomy, and self-threading expanders. Implants were placed and loaded with fixed partial denture after 4 months for the mandible and 6 months for the maxilla. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured at T0 (implant placement) and TL (loading). Crestal bone levels were measured at different times: T0, TL, and T12 (12 months). Evaluation of prosthetic and surgical complications was carried out. Data were analyzed and compared using analysis of variance and paired t-tests at a significance level of 5%. Results All implants met the criteria for success. All implants showed a higher mean bone loss from T0 to TL (1.259 ± 0.3020) than from TL to T12 (0.505 ± 0.163) with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.0001). ISQ values sharply increased at the time of loading (72.52 ± 2.734) than at implant insertion (44.5 ± 4.062) with a significant difference (p < 0.0001). Minor prosthetic and surgical complications were reported. Conclusion The results from this study support the efficacy of prosthetic rehabilitation of thin wiry ridge using split ridge technique and the success of implants placed simultaneously in splitted ridge.

Objective: To evaluate patients’ satisfaction, biting force measurement, and radiographic evaluation of abutment teeth of tooth implant-supported fixed partial denture, unilateral attachment, and conventional partial denture in mandibular distal extension cases. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four participants were selected according to the following criteria: participants with unilateral mandibular distal extension with last standing second premolar abutment; participants having abutments with sufficient occluso-gingival height and good periodontal condition. Participants were divided into the following three equal groups: participants of the implant group received fixed tooth implant-supported fixed partial dentures, attachment group participants received unilateral attachment removable partial dentures, and conventional group participants received conventional removable partial dentures. The evaluation included patient satisfaction using “OHIP14” questionnaires, biting force measurement, and radiographic evaluation of terminal abutments using the ANOVA test. Results: Participants of the implant group were mainly satisfied with their prosthesis than the attachment group, which is higher than the conventional. Regarding biting force measurement, there is a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between all groups, including the implant group and attachment group, as well as between attachment and conventional group (p < 0.05). The conventional group showed statistically significant (p < 0.05) highest mean bone loss, while there was no statistically significant difference between implant and attachment groups; both showed statistically significantly lower mean amounts of bone loss. Conclusion: The tooth implant-supported fixed prosthesis could be considered a superior line of treatment for managing distal extension cases. Unilateral attachment, which is considered an excellent alternative in the case of implant placement, is not recommended.

Purpose: This study aimed at evaluating patients' satisfaction with conventional one-piece obturators versus two-piece magnet-retained obturators in completely edentulous patient maxillectomy cases. Materials and Methods: Ten completely edentulous participants with hemimaxillectomy (8 males and 2 females) were selected in a crossover study. Participants received a conventional obturator one-piece and two-piece obturators connected by magnet attachment in alternate periods (sequences A‐B and B‐A), and outcomes were assessed after 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months Evaluation was made using Obturator Functioning Scale (OFS) and Oral Health Impact Profile for edentulous people (OHIP-EDENT). One way ANOVA test and multivariate analysis of variance with a general linear model with repeated measures was used to test the impact of the group, time, and order on each of the studied scores (α=.05). Results: Magnet design showed a statistically significant lower score (P <.050) than the conventional design regarding the overall satisfaction score of OFS along all follow-up periods. Concerning OHIP-EDENT, the magnet design showed a statistically significant lower score (P <.050) than the conventional design regarding total functional limitations, total physical pain, and total social disability along all follow-up periods while for total psychological discomfort, total physical disability, and total handicap, no statistically significant difference was observed between both groups (P >.050). Conclusion: Two-pieces magnet-retained obturator could provide better satisfaction and better restoration of orofacial function than the conventional one to manage completely edentulous patients. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT05066828