Aim: This clinical work aimed to evaluate and compare retention force of single versus 2-implants mandibular overdentures reinforced by poly ether-ether ketone (PEEK)framework. Subjects and methods: sixteen completely edentulous participants were eligible for this study. Patients were randomly divided into two equal groups, for group I single implant was inserted in mandibular midline area, single ball abutment was threaded in place, each patient receive mandibular overdenture reinforced with PEEK framework. In group II, insertion of 2-implants in the mandibular canine region, two ball abutments were threaded in place, each patient receives mandibular overdenture reinforced with PEEK framework. The evaluation of retention was performed using digital force-meter device at time of overdenture insertion (T0) & three months later (T3). Both groups were compared with independent t-test. Results: at time of mandibular overdenture insertion (T0), two groups were recorded significant difference in retention forces. 2-implants with PEEK framework recorded higher retention forces compared to single-implant with PEEK framework (P value≤0.001). Significant difference in retention forces was recorded after 3 months between two different groups (P value≤0.001). Within group when compared mean retention values at (T0, T3) showed insignificant difference as in group I (P value 0.058) & in group II (P value 0.148).Conclusion: both single and 2-implants mandibular overdentures reinforced with PEEK framework can provide acceptable retention forces. Two-implant mandibular overdentures provide higher retention forces than singleimplant mandibular overdentures during different evaluation periods.
Objective: This study aimed to radiographic evaluation of two different bar attachments (bar/locator and bar/ball) for mandibular overdenture supported by 2 implants after 5-year period. Subjects and Methods: For this study, ten completely edentulous participants were selected. Each participant received two dental implants at mandibular canine regions. They were divided into two equal groups: Group I: Each patient received overdentures with bar/locator attachment. Group II: Each patient received overdentures with bar/ball attachment. The vertical marginal bone loss was evaluated using digital peri-apical radiographs over 5-year period. Results: There was a statistically insignificant difference between group I and group II in vertical marginal bone loss after 1 year. However, after five years follow up there was a statistically significant difference between both groups as marginal bone loss was found to be more in group I than that in group II. Conclusion: Bar/ball attachment offers better results in vertical marginal bone loss than bar/locator attachment. Bar locator preferred to be used with four-implants overdenture instead of two-implants to decrease bone loss around implants. It is mandatory to perform monitoring follow-up to avoid any harmful effect on implant and/or residual ridge, maintaining the prosthesis/attachment/ tissue relation to assure proper functional load distribution to avoid further bone resorption.
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.