Objectives: The aim of this was to compare the influence of two different angulated abutment designs on patient satisfaction, oral health-related quality of life, and prosthetic aspects of implant-supported maxillary overdentures. Materials and Methods:For this cross-over study, 18 patients with completely edentulous maxillary ridges opposing implant-retained mandibular overdentures received 4 implants between the maxillary sinuses using computer-guided surgery. The anterior implants were installed at canine/lateral incisor areas and inclined 15 labially. The posterior implants were inserted just anterior to the maxillary sinuses and inclined 15o distally. Eight patients received maxillary overdentures retained by angled ball attachment (ball overdenture [BOD]) and angled locator attachment in random order. After 6 months, patients indicated satisfaction with their prosthesis using a visual analog scale (VAS), and oral health impact profile (OHIP-14). Moreover, postinsertion prosthodontic maintenance and complications were recorded for both attachments. Comparisons of patient satisfaction and prosthetic complications between groups were performed using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs test and the McNemar test, respectively.Results: Locator overdenture (LOD) recorded significantly higher scores than the BOD group regarding all the VAS questions except for ease of cleaning (p < 0.007).LOD recorded significantly higher patient satisfaction regarding the pronunciation of sounds (p = 0.009), painful aching (p = 0.018), feeling tense (p = 0.011), unsatisfactory diet (p = 0.013), irritability with people (p = 0.005), and life in general (p = 0.004). The most common complications were matrix activation/renewal (n = 34). BOD showed a significantly higher incidence of attachment loosening (p = 0.002), and teeth fracture (p = 0.049) than LOD. LOD showed a significantly higher incidence of attachment wear and replacement than BOD (p <0.001). There was no difference between groups regarding soft tissue complications. Conclusion:Within the limitations of this study, and in terms of improved patientcentered outcomes, angled locator attachments are recommended to retain maxillary implant overdentures opposed by implant retained mandibular overdentures at it was
Background: Stabilisation splint therapy (SST) and low-level laser therapy (LLLT) are effective-invasive treatment for temporo-mandibular disorder (TMD) patients.However, the specific efficacy of each therapy in patients with chronic closed lock (CCL) from temporo-mandibular joints (TMJ) disc displacement without reduction (DDwoR) remains unknown. Objectives:The aim of this study was to assess and compare the efficacy of SST and LLLT alone or in combination in patients with CCL from TMJ DDwoR.Methods: This parallel randomised clinical trial included 42 patients who were diagnosed with CCL from TMJ DDwoR. Patients were allocated equally and randomly into three treatment groups: group I received combined SST and LLLT, group II received LLLT and group III received SST. Maximum mouth opening (MMO), visual analogue scale (VAS), muscle and joint palpation scores and time required to achieve normal state were evaluated at baseline, 1, 2, 4 weeks, 3 and 6 months after the intervention.Data were collected and analysed using SPSS software.Results: Regarding MMO and VAS, a statistically significant improvement was found between group I versus group II and versus group III at all evaluation times. Regarding muscle and joint palpation scores, a statistically significant difference was found between group I versus group III, while non-significant difference was found between group I and group II. A statistically significant faster improvement was found in group I versus group III and versus group II. Conclusion:All treatment modalities can be effective in management of CCL from a TMJ DDwoR cases, but the combined SST and LLLT group seems to provide the best and quickest improvement.Clinical trial registration number: NCT05548894.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.