Comparison between Two Different Attachment Caps Used in Comparison between Two Different Attachment Caps Used in Locator Attachments of Implant supported Overdentures (In-Vitro Locator Attachments of Implant supported Overdentures (In-Vitro Study)

Hossam Haridy, Hebatallah ElAfandy, M. Abdallah, Ahmed Ossama
{"title":"Comparison between Two Different Attachment Caps Used in Comparison between Two Different Attachment Caps Used in Locator Attachments of Implant supported Overdentures (In-Vitro Locator Attachments of Implant supported Overdentures (In-Vitro Study)","authors":"Hossam Haridy, Hebatallah ElAfandy, M. Abdallah, Ahmed Ossama","doi":"10.54623/fdj.8017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To compare different retentive cap material used in LOCATOR attachments, namely the nylon retentive cap versus PEEK retentive caps, and measure the loss of retention over a period of two years, through 2880 cycles of insertion and removal. Materials and methods: Two implants 3.8mm x 10.5mm were inserted into a clear epoxy resin cast, through a surgical guide, with the implants being 23mm apart. Two LOCATOR attachments with 5 mm gingival height were screwed to the implants, custom made nylon caps were fabricated as an exact replica of the PEEK retentive caps, then two dentures were constructed and pick up were done with both retentive cap materials. A hook was attached to the geometric center of both dentures, and measurement of the retentive forces was accomplished with a universal testing machine, and the data was recorded and analyzed. Results: The amount of retention achieved from PEEK retentive caps was twice that of the nylon retentive caps, indicating high statistical significance (p < 0.001) of the effect of the material and remained so throughout the repeated cycles with (p < 0.001), however both caps showed similar rate of retention loss throughout the study, but the amount of wear was statistically higher in the PEEK group throughout the cycles, except after 2880 cycles. Conclusion: PEEK showed higher retentive properties throughout the cycles, but both materials showed similar rate of retention loss","PeriodicalId":100562,"journal":{"name":"Future Dental Journal","volume":"225 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future Dental Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54623/fdj.8017","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

Purpose: To compare different retentive cap material used in LOCATOR attachments, namely the nylon retentive cap versus PEEK retentive caps, and measure the loss of retention over a period of two years, through 2880 cycles of insertion and removal. Materials and methods: Two implants 3.8mm x 10.5mm were inserted into a clear epoxy resin cast, through a surgical guide, with the implants being 23mm apart. Two LOCATOR attachments with 5 mm gingival height were screwed to the implants, custom made nylon caps were fabricated as an exact replica of the PEEK retentive caps, then two dentures were constructed and pick up were done with both retentive cap materials. A hook was attached to the geometric center of both dentures, and measurement of the retentive forces was accomplished with a universal testing machine, and the data was recorded and analyzed. Results: The amount of retention achieved from PEEK retentive caps was twice that of the nylon retentive caps, indicating high statistical significance (p < 0.001) of the effect of the material and remained so throughout the repeated cycles with (p < 0.001), however both caps showed similar rate of retention loss throughout the study, but the amount of wear was statistically higher in the PEEK group throughout the cycles, except after 2880 cycles. Conclusion: PEEK showed higher retentive properties throughout the cycles, but both materials showed similar rate of retention loss
种植支撑覆盖义齿定位器附着体中两种不同附着帽的比较(种植支撑覆盖义齿的体外定位附着体(体外研究))
目的:比较LOCATOR附件中使用的不同固位帽材料,即尼龙固位帽与PEEK固位帽,并通过2880次插入和取出周期来测量两年期间的固位损失。材料与方法:将2个3.8mm × 10.5mm的种植体通过手术导尿管置入透明的环氧树脂铸件中,种植体间距23mm。将两个牙龈高度为5mm的LOCATOR附着体固定在种植体上,制作定制的尼龙帽作为PEEK固定帽的精确复制品,然后构建两个义齿并使用两种固定帽材料进行拾取。在两个义齿的几何中心固定一个挂钩,用万能试验机测量固位力,并记录数据并进行分析。结果:PEEK固定帽获得的固位量是尼龙固定帽的两倍,表明材料的影响具有很高的统计学意义(p < 0.001),并且在整个重复循环中保持如此(p < 0.001),然而两种帽在整个研究中显示相似的固位损失率,但是在整个循环中,PEEK组的磨损量在统计上更高,除了2880个循环之后。结论:PEEK在整个循环过程中具有较高的固位性能,但两种材料的固位损失率相似
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信