Purpose
To evaluate and compare the alterations in retention of three Locator attachments after immersion in various denture cleansers at defined time intervals.
Materials and Methods
Two implants were embedded in an acrylic block. Pink, blue, and clear Locator attachments (n = 10 for each subgroup) were immersed into three different cleansing solutions (Corega, Protefix and NaOCl) and tap water (control) at different time intervals that simulate 1 (T1), 6 (T2), and 12 (T3) months of clinical use. Universal testing machine set at a crosshead speed of 50 mm/min was used for pull‐out tests. After the immersion procedure, the peak force to dislodgement was recorded to demonstrate the changes in retention of Locator attachments. Data were analyzed using repeated‐measures ANOVA followed by Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) tests (α = .05).
Results
All denture cleansing solutions affected the retentive values of all Locator attachments at defined time intervals (F = 4.299, p = 0.001). NaOCl affected all groups significantly after 12‐month immersion time (p = 0.001). The least retention loss at all subgroups was observed in Corega for clear Locator attachments (106.17 ± 5.21 N). The difference in retention values for pink attachments were not statistically significant for tap water, Protefix and Corega immersion at all time intervals (p > 0.05). Following NaOCl (blue; 33.31 ± 4.72 N, clear; 52.3 ± 8.5 N), tap water decreased the retention value of blue (41.14 ± 3.93 N) and clear (76.72 ± 8.42 N) Locator attachments at T3. Corega caused the least retention loss to clear attachments at T1 (106.17 ± 3.55 N).
Conclusion
The retention of Locator attachments decreases over time after exposure to various denture cleansing solutions. As NaOCl significantly decreased the retentive values of all attachments, patients must be informed about that disadvantage. Also, tap water remarkably decreased retentive ability of all attachments. Periodic addition of an effervescent tablet into tap water may be recommended to patients that wear implant retained overdentures with Locator attachments.
Light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation (laser) is one of the most recent treatment modalities in dentistry. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) is suggested to have biostimulating and analgesic effects through direct irradiation without causing thermal response. There are few studies that have investigated the efficacy of laser therapy in temporomandibular disorders (TMD), especially in reduced mouth opening. The case report here evaluates performance of LLLT with a diode laser for temporomandibular clicking and postoperative findings were evaluated in two cases of TMD patients. First patient had a history of limited mouth opening and pain in temporomandibular joint (TMJ) region since nine months. Second patient's main complaint was his restricted mouth opening, which was progressed in one year. LLLT was performed with a 685 nm red probed diode laser that has an energy density of 6.2 J/cm2, three times a week for one month, and application time was 30 seconds (685 nm, 25 mW, 30 s, 0.02 Hz, and 6.2 J/cm2) (BTL-2000, Portative Laser Therapy Device). The treatment protocol was decided according to the literature. One year later patients were evaluated and there were no changes. This application suggested that LLLT is an appropriate treatment for TMD related pain and limited mouth opening and should be considered as an alternative to other methods.
PURPOSEThe purpose of this study was to determine the changing frequency of a diamond bur after multiple usages on 3 different surfaces.MATERIALS AND METHODSHuman premolar teeth (N = 26), disc shaped direct metal laser sintered CoCr (N = 3) and zirconia specimens (N = 3) were used in this study. Groups named basically as Group T for teeth, Group M for CoCr, and Group Z for zirconia. Round tapered black-band diamond bur was used. The specimens were randomly divided into three groups and placed with a special assembly onto the surveyor. 1, 5, and 10 preparation protocols were performed to the first, second, and third sub-groups, respectively. The subgroups were named according to preparation numbers (1, 5, 10). The mentioned bur of each group was then used at another horizontal preparation on a new tooth sample. The same procedure was used for CoCr and zirconia disc specimens. All of the bur surfaces were evaluated using roughness analysis. Then, horizontal tooth preparation surfaces were examined under both stereomicroscope and SEM. The depth maps of tooth surfaces were also obtained from digital stereomicroscopic images. The results were statistically analyzed using One-Way ANOVA, and the Tukey HSD post-hoc tests (α=.05).RESULTSAll of the groups were significantly different from the control group (P<.001). There was no significant difference between groups Z5 and Z10 (P=.928). Significant differences were found among groups T5, M5, and Z5 (P<.001).CONCLUSIONDiamond burs wear after multiple use and they should be changed after 5 teeth preparations at most. A diamond bur should not be used for teeth preparation after try-in procedures of metal or zirconia substructures.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.