- Email: [email protected]
Mandibular overdentures retained by two implants: 10-year results from a crossover clinical trial comparing ball-socket and bar-clip attachments
136
Volume 105 Issue 2 28.Lopuck S, Smith J, Caputo A. Photoelastic comparison of posterior denture occlusions. J Prosthet Dent 1978;40:18-22. 29.Swoope CC, Kydd WL. The effect of cusp form and occlusal surface area on denture base deformation. J Prosthet Dent 1966;16:34-43. 30.Kubo K, Kawata T, Suenaga H, Yoda N, Shigemitsu R, Ogawa T, et al. Development of in vivo measuring system of the pressure distribution under the denture base of removable partial denture. J Prosthodont Res 2009;53:15-21. 31.Cutright DE, Brudvik JS, Gay WD, Selting WJ. Tissue pressure under complete maxillary dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1976;35:160-70. 32.Watson CJ, Huggett R. Pressures recorded at the denture base-mucosal surface interface in complete denture wearers. J Oral Rehabil 1987;14:575-89.
33.Miyaura K, Morita M, Matsuka Y, Yamashita A, Watanabe T. Rehabilitation of biting abilities in patients with different types of dental prostheses. J Oral Rehabil 2000;27:1073-6. 34.Miyaura K, Matsuka Y, Morita M, Yamashita A, Watanabe T. Comparison of biting forces in different age and sex groups: a study of biting efficiency with mobile and non-mobile teeth. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26:223-7. 35.Phunthikaphadr T, Takahashi H, Arksornnukit M. Pressure transmission and distribution under impact load using artificial denture teeth made of different materials. J Prosthet Dent 2009;102:319-27. 36.Anusavice KJ. Phillips’science of dental materials. 11th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2003. p.721-58, 371-4.
37.Patterson R, Pogue D, Viegas S. The effects of time and light exposure on contact and pressure measurements using Fuji prescale film. Iowa Orthop J 1997;17:64-9. Corresponding author: Dr Mansuang Arksornnukit Chulalongkorn University Bangkok, 10300 THAILAND Fax: +662 218 8534 E-mail: [email protected] Acknowledgments The authors thank Shofu, Inc. Kyoto, Japan, for their generous donation of the artificial denture teeth used in the study. The authors also extend special thanks to Mr. Daniel Gill for his invaluable help with the final language editing. Copyright © 2010 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
Noteworthy Abstracts of the Current Literature Mandibular overdentures retained by two implants: 10-year results from a crossover clinical trial comparing ball-socket and bar-clip attachments Cune M, Burgers M, van Kampen F, de Putter C, van der Bilt A. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:310-7. Purpose. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction and clinical and prosthetic outcomes of two-implant mandibular overdenture treatment with different attachment types after 10 years of function. Materials and Methods. In a crossover clinical trial, 18 edentulous subjects with complaints regarding their mandibular dentures received two implants and a new denture with magnet, ball-socket, or bar-clip attachments that were applied in a random order. At the end of the experiment, the attachment type of their choosing was fitted in the overdenture. After 10 years, 7 subjects with a ball-socket and 7 subjects with a bar-clip attachment were available for evaluation. The same questionnaire from 10 years before was completed, and subjects were asked to express their overall appreciation of their dentures on a visual analog scale (VAS). Six scales of denture complaints were constructed. Mean scale and VAS scores between initial evaluation and after 10 years were compared. In addition, marginal probing depths, Bleeding Index, and radiographic marginal bone loss were assessed. Results. There was no marked difference in satisfaction between subjects with ball-socket– and bar-clip–retained two-implant mandibular overdentures at initial evaluation and after 10 years of function. Conclusion. Patients’ appreciation of their implant-retained denture was and remained high over time. Clinical parameters revealed healthy mucosal conditions and stable marginal bone levels, determined radiographically. Probing depths around implants provided with ball-socket attachments were slightly shallower than those with bar-clip attachments after 10 years of function (P < .05). Reprinted with permission of Quintessence Publishing.
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Arksornnukit et al
Volume 105 Issue 2 28.Lopuck S, Smith J, Caputo A. Photoelastic comparison of posterior denture occlusions. J Prosthet Dent 1978;40:18-22. 29.Swoope CC, Kydd WL. The effect of cusp form and occlusal surface area on denture base deformation. J Prosthet Dent 1966;16:34-43. 30.Kubo K, Kawata T, Suenaga H, Yoda N, Shigemitsu R, Ogawa T, et al. Development of in vivo measuring system of the pressure distribution under the denture base of removable partial denture. J Prosthodont Res 2009;53:15-21. 31.Cutright DE, Brudvik JS, Gay WD, Selting WJ. Tissue pressure under complete maxillary dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1976;35:160-70. 32.Watson CJ, Huggett R. Pressures recorded at the denture base-mucosal surface interface in complete denture wearers. J Oral Rehabil 1987;14:575-89.
33.Miyaura K, Morita M, Matsuka Y, Yamashita A, Watanabe T. Rehabilitation of biting abilities in patients with different types of dental prostheses. J Oral Rehabil 2000;27:1073-6. 34.Miyaura K, Matsuka Y, Morita M, Yamashita A, Watanabe T. Comparison of biting forces in different age and sex groups: a study of biting efficiency with mobile and non-mobile teeth. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26:223-7. 35.Phunthikaphadr T, Takahashi H, Arksornnukit M. Pressure transmission and distribution under impact load using artificial denture teeth made of different materials. J Prosthet Dent 2009;102:319-27. 36.Anusavice KJ. Phillips’science of dental materials. 11th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2003. p.721-58, 371-4.
37.Patterson R, Pogue D, Viegas S. The effects of time and light exposure on contact and pressure measurements using Fuji prescale film. Iowa Orthop J 1997;17:64-9. Corresponding author: Dr Mansuang Arksornnukit Chulalongkorn University Bangkok, 10300 THAILAND Fax: +662 218 8534 E-mail: [email protected] Acknowledgments The authors thank Shofu, Inc. Kyoto, Japan, for their generous donation of the artificial denture teeth used in the study. The authors also extend special thanks to Mr. Daniel Gill for his invaluable help with the final language editing. Copyright © 2010 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
Noteworthy Abstracts of the Current Literature Mandibular overdentures retained by two implants: 10-year results from a crossover clinical trial comparing ball-socket and bar-clip attachments Cune M, Burgers M, van Kampen F, de Putter C, van der Bilt A. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:310-7. Purpose. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction and clinical and prosthetic outcomes of two-implant mandibular overdenture treatment with different attachment types after 10 years of function. Materials and Methods. In a crossover clinical trial, 18 edentulous subjects with complaints regarding their mandibular dentures received two implants and a new denture with magnet, ball-socket, or bar-clip attachments that were applied in a random order. At the end of the experiment, the attachment type of their choosing was fitted in the overdenture. After 10 years, 7 subjects with a ball-socket and 7 subjects with a bar-clip attachment were available for evaluation. The same questionnaire from 10 years before was completed, and subjects were asked to express their overall appreciation of their dentures on a visual analog scale (VAS). Six scales of denture complaints were constructed. Mean scale and VAS scores between initial evaluation and after 10 years were compared. In addition, marginal probing depths, Bleeding Index, and radiographic marginal bone loss were assessed. Results. There was no marked difference in satisfaction between subjects with ball-socket– and bar-clip–retained two-implant mandibular overdentures at initial evaluation and after 10 years of function. Conclusion. Patients’ appreciation of their implant-retained denture was and remained high over time. Clinical parameters revealed healthy mucosal conditions and stable marginal bone levels, determined radiographically. Probing depths around implants provided with ball-socket attachments were slightly shallower than those with bar-clip attachments after 10 years of function (P < .05). Reprinted with permission of Quintessence Publishing.
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Arksornnukit et al