Clinical Comparative Study of Retention for Single Versus Two- Implant Mandibular Overdentures Reinforced by PEEK Framework

Heba Abozaed
{"title":"Clinical Comparative Study of Retention for Single Versus Two- Implant Mandibular Overdentures Reinforced by PEEK Framework","authors":"Heba Abozaed","doi":"10.21608/aadj.2023.296417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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 single-implant mandibular overdentures during different evaluation periods.","PeriodicalId":136230,"journal":{"name":"Al-Azhar Assiut Dental Journal","volume":"73 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Al-Azhar Assiut Dental Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/aadj.2023.296417","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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 single-implant mandibular overdentures during different evaluation periods.
PEEK框架加固单种植体与双种植体下颌覆盖义齿固位的临床比较研究
目的:评价和比较聚醚醚酮(PEEK)框架下单种植体和双种植体覆盖义齿的固位力。对象和方法:16名完全无牙的受试者符合本研究的条件。患者随机分为两组,第一组在下颌中线区域种植单颗种植体,将单颗球基牙螺纹固定就位,每个患者均接受PEEK框架加固下颌覆盖义齿。II组在下颌犬齿区植入2颗种植体,螺纹固定2个球基牙,每个患者接受PEEK框架加固的下颌覆盖义齿。在覆盖义齿插入时(T0)和三个月后(T3)使用数字力计装置评估固位。两组比较采用独立t检验。结果:下颌覆盖义齿插入时(T0),两组固位力差异有统计学意义。与PEEK框架的单种植体相比,PEEK框架的2个种植体的固位力更高(P值≤0.001)。3个月后两组固位力差异有统计学意义(P值≤0.001)。组内(T0、T3)的平均滞留值比较,I组(P值0.058)和II组(P值0.148)差异不显著。结论:单种植体和双种植体用PEEK框架加固下颌覆盖义齿均能提供良好的固位力。在不同的评估期内,双种植体下颌覆盖义齿的固位力高于单种植体下颌覆盖义齿。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信