THE EFFECT OF TWO DIFFERENT ATTACHMENTS WITH IMPLANT RETAINED MANDIBULAR OVERDENTURES ON PATIENT SATISFACTION AND MASTICATORY FUNCTION | ||||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 38, Volume 63, Issue 2 - April (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics), April 2017, Page 1973-1981 PDF (1.27 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2017.75180 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Ahmed Emad Fayyad; Nouran Abdel Nabi | ||||
| Lecturer, Prosthodontics Department - Faculty of Dentistry - Cairo University | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Background: Dental implants have solved all of the problems of retention and stability of conventional complete dentures. The improved retention and stability of overdentures retained by two, three or four implants have resulted in an improvement in overall patient satisfaction, together with improvement in the chewing ability and biting force. The choice of selection of the type of attachment will mainly depend upon the need for stabilization against horizontal forces. Rigid attachments have been advocated to provide optimum stabilization against horizontal forces. Materials and Methods: Three interforaminal implants have been installed in the edentulous mandible of twelve completely edentulous patients. After 3 month from implant installation the patients were randomly divided into two equal groups; the first group received a ball attachment, while the second group received a parallel wall telescopic attachment. All patients received new complete dentures fabricated with a chroum-cobalt framework embedded in the fitting surface of the denture. Satisfaction, masticatory ability and the biting force were recorded for all patients in both groups at the following intervals; before implant installation, 2 weeks after loading, 3 month after loading and after a 1 year follow up. Results: There was a statistically significant improvement in patient satisfaction between the conventional complete denture before implant installation and the implant supported overdenture after implant installation, with in each group of patients. When comparing between the two groups, there was no statistically significant difference with regards to patient satisfaction , chewing ability and biting force after a 1 year follow up, with a slightly higher mean score value in the telescopic attachment group. Discussion: Placement of 3 interforamenal implants with ball attachment with a chrome-cobalt framework embedded in the fitting surface of the complete dentures have limited the resiliency of the ball attachment and so decreased the liability of movement or fracture of the overdenture. When comparing the splinted ball attachment with the rigid splinted parallel wall telescopic attachment, | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 91 PDF Download: 142 |
||||
