Definite pressure impression technique for implant-retained mandibular overdenture is associated with minimal denture deformation during function when compared with mucostatic and selective pressure techniques. Reinforcement of the denture base over the implants may be recommended to increase resistance of fracture when mucostatic or selective pressure impression technique is used.

The objective of this research was to clinically compare peri-implant tissue health of bar-clips vs silicone-resilient liners used with bilateral posterior bars for retaining 4 implant-supported mandibular overdentures. Thirty completely edentulous male patients (mean age, 65 years) were randomly assigned into 2 equal groups. Each patient received 4 implants in the canine and first molar regions of the mandible using a flapless surgical technique. Mandibular overdentures were immediately connected to the implants with bilateral prefabricated instant adjusting bars. According to the method of retention to the bar, 1 group was retained with clips (GI), whereas the other group was retained with a silicone-resilient soft liner (GII). Peri-implant tissue health was evaluated clinically in terms of plaque scores (MPI), bleeding scores (MBI), probing depth (PD), and implant stability (IS). MPI, MBI, and PD were measured at mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual surfaces of each implant. Evaluations were performed 2 weeks (T0), 6 months (T6), and 12 months (T12) after overdenture insertion. Implants of GI with clips demonstrated significant increase in plaque, bleeding, and PD scores compared with those of GII with silicone-resilient liner at all observation times. Implants in GI demonstrated a significant decrease in implant stability compared with those of GII at T6 and T12 anteriorly and at T12 posteriorly. Resilient liners are considered better than bar-clips when used with bilateral posterior bars for retaining implant-supported mandibular overdentures in terms of peri-implant soft tissue health. Bilateral posterior ready-made bars cannot be proposed as a promising design for supporting implant-assisted mandibular overdentures.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: This cross-over study aimed at assessing masticatory efficiency in singleimplant mandibular overdentures with different reinforcement materials (CO-Cr and PEEK). Materials and Methods: Eight completely edentulous participants have been delivered conventional complete dentures. One month later; they received a single midline mandibular implant. After three months of osseointegration, each patient received two mandibular overdentures; one was metal reinforced (Group I), and the other was PEEK reinforced (Group II). Masticatory efficiency for both groups (I & II) was carried out. Masticatory efficiency was measured by two colored chewing gums test at time of each overdenture insertion (T0). Thereafter, masticatory efficiency was evaluated subsequent to three months of using metal and PEEK reinforced overdentures (T3). Results: In regard to masticatory efficiency, no significant difference was noted between the studied groups reinforced with metal or PEEK at (T0) and three months after insertion (T3). Among chewing strokes, significant differences were revealed between varied chewing stroke counts among both groups (increased chewing efficiency with an increased number of chewing strokes). Conclusion: Respecting single midline implant overdenture, there was no significant difference between (Metal & PEEK) reinforcement regarding masticatory efficiency. SIMOs reinforced with either Metal or PEEK frameworks could be successful treatment options for assisting mandibular complete overdentures.