Comparison of the Retention of Conventional and Polyvinyl Siloxane Matrix Materials with Different Patrices for Implant-Retained Overdentures: An In Vitro Study

Yılmaz, Ercan; Gençel, Burç; Geçkili, Onur; Şakar, Olcay

doi:10.11607/ijp.6882

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nylon and PEEK showed a higher rate of retention loss than polyvinyl siloxane. Yılmaz et al [ 14 ] compared the retention forces of implant overdenture patrices (ball, bar, and TiSi.snap) to conventional (O-ring, metal housing, and clip) and polyvinyl siloxane- (PVS-) based silicone matrix materials. Loss of retention occurred in all the attachment systems at the end of 3,650 cycles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Greater retentive strength may also affect the longevity of the flexible matrix [6][7][8][9]. Maximum studies evaluated the retentive strengths of 2IMO after simulated function and very few evaluated the stresses at baseline without age simulation [9,[11][12][13][14][15]. e attachments are serviceable from the first day of their usage in mouth; hence, the present study evaluated their retentive strength without any age simulation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many investors evaluated the effect of cyclic loading on stud attachment wear [9,[11][12][13][14][15] and initial retention was significantly higher than retention after wear or simulated clinical function under different number of insertion-removal cycles for different type of inserts. However, the literature lacks the information on the retentive strength of the attachments without insertion-removal cycles which simulates the overdenture usage from the first day.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…e gingival and bleeding index of the patients were not influenced by any of the unsplinted attachments (stud, magnet, and telescopic) studied [16]. Most of these studies [11][12][13][14][15][16][17] used canine position as a standard position in 2IMO patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effect of Implant Positions and Angulations on Retentive Strength of 2-Implant Mandibular Overdentures: An In Vitro Study with the New 3D-Printed Simulation Method

Patil

Seow

Uddanwadikar

et al. 2022

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives. To evaluate the retentive strength of overdenture attachments in 2-implant mandibular overdenture (2IMO) with implants placed at different positions and angulations. Materials and Methods. Edentulous mandibular models were 3D-printed using CBCT images and Materialise Mimics software and the denture models using the intraoral scanner. Two standard implants were placed parallel at different positions from midline (5, 10, 15, and 20 mm) with 0-0 degree angulations and with different distal angulations (0–5, 0–10, 0–15, 5-5, 10-10, and 15-15 degrees) at 10±mm from midline representing 10 study groups. Low-profile male attachments were attached to the implants and the female pink attachments were picked up in the denture. A total of 4 simulated overdenture model sets for each of the 10 study groups were subjected to the universal testing machine thrice to measure a peak load (N) to disengage the attachments vertically. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test at 0.05 significance level. Results. Varying implant positions had a statistically significant effect on the retentive strengths of the attachments (F = 5.61, P = 0.002 ). Peak load-to-dislodgement values (in increasing order) were 49.64 ± 8.27 N for 5 mm, 53.26 ± 11.48 N for 10 mm, 60.24 ± 12.31 N for 15 mm, and 64.80 ± 6.78 N for 20 mm groups. The retentive strength of the 20 mm group was significantly higher than 5 mm ( P = 0.003 ) and 10 mm ( P = 0.03 ) groups. Varying implant angulations had a significant effect on the retentive strengths of the attachments (F = 7.412, P = 0.000 ). The peak load-to-dislodgement values (in increasing order) were 48.20 ± 15.59 N for 5-5 degrees, 53.26 ± 11.48 N for 0-0 degrees, 54.96 ± 8.25 N for 0–5 degrees, 57.71 ± 7.62 N for 10-10 degrees, 66.00 ± 17.54 N for 15-15 degrees, 66.18 ± 14.09 N for 0–10 degrees, and 77.38 ± 10.33 N for 0–15 degrees. Retentive strength of 0–15 degrees was significantly ( P < 0.05 ) higher than those of 0-0, 0–5, 5-5, and 10-10 degrees and that of 5-5 degrees was significantly ( P < 0.05 ) lower than those of 0–10, 0–15, and 15-15 groups. Conclusions. Retentive strength of the 2IMO increased with increase in distance of implants from midline and increased with increase in distal angulations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%