Cargando…
Comparison of Retention of Two Different Attachment Systems Used in Implant-Supported Overdentures
AIM: This study aims to compare the retentive capacity of two attachment systems after manual thermocycling. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: In vitro study and Comparative trail. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An edentulous mandibular Polymethyl Methacrylate model was fabricated to receive the overdentures with the tw...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9469436/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36110775 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_733_21 |
_version_ | 1784788646169149440 |
---|---|
author | Dhamodaran, S. Ahmed, Shafath Nandini, Vidyashree Marimuthu, Russia Ramadoss, Sethuraman |
author_facet | Dhamodaran, S. Ahmed, Shafath Nandini, Vidyashree Marimuthu, Russia Ramadoss, Sethuraman |
author_sort | Dhamodaran, S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIM: This study aims to compare the retentive capacity of two attachment systems after manual thermocycling. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: In vitro study and Comparative trail. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An edentulous mandibular Polymethyl Methacrylate model was fabricated to receive the overdentures with the two attachment systems to be compared. Two dental implants were placed in the predetermined right and left mandibular canine regions of the model. A total number of eight overdentures, four per group, were fabricated over the two implants with two attachment systems to be compared; Bar and clip attachment system (Group-1) and Locator attachment system (Group-2). All the overdentures were subjected to 5000 alternating thermal cycles using manual thermocycling. Then the samples were subjected to 100 vertical pulls each in the anterior and posterior regions using a universal testing machine and the mean retentive forces were calculated for each sample in the anterior and posterior regions, respectively. RESULTS: The mean retentive forces after 100 vertical pulls, were calculated and tabulated for each sample in the anterior and posterior regions separately. Then, the cumulative mean of the anterior and the posterior regions were calculated for each group. The cumulative mean retentive forces of both the attachment groups were-Group-1 (Bar and clip attachment system) = 27.87 N ± 4.01 and Group-2 (locator attachment system) = 18.85 N ± 2.50 with a P value of 0.021. This difference was found to be statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the present in vitro study, the bar and clip attachment system offered better retention than the locator attachment system. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9469436 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-94694362022-09-14 Comparison of Retention of Two Different Attachment Systems Used in Implant-Supported Overdentures Dhamodaran, S. Ahmed, Shafath Nandini, Vidyashree Marimuthu, Russia Ramadoss, Sethuraman J Pharm Bioallied Sci Original Article AIM: This study aims to compare the retentive capacity of two attachment systems after manual thermocycling. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: In vitro study and Comparative trail. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An edentulous mandibular Polymethyl Methacrylate model was fabricated to receive the overdentures with the two attachment systems to be compared. Two dental implants were placed in the predetermined right and left mandibular canine regions of the model. A total number of eight overdentures, four per group, were fabricated over the two implants with two attachment systems to be compared; Bar and clip attachment system (Group-1) and Locator attachment system (Group-2). All the overdentures were subjected to 5000 alternating thermal cycles using manual thermocycling. Then the samples were subjected to 100 vertical pulls each in the anterior and posterior regions using a universal testing machine and the mean retentive forces were calculated for each sample in the anterior and posterior regions, respectively. RESULTS: The mean retentive forces after 100 vertical pulls, were calculated and tabulated for each sample in the anterior and posterior regions separately. Then, the cumulative mean of the anterior and the posterior regions were calculated for each group. The cumulative mean retentive forces of both the attachment groups were-Group-1 (Bar and clip attachment system) = 27.87 N ± 4.01 and Group-2 (locator attachment system) = 18.85 N ± 2.50 with a P value of 0.021. This difference was found to be statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the present in vitro study, the bar and clip attachment system offered better retention than the locator attachment system. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022-07 2022-07-13 /pmc/articles/PMC9469436/ /pubmed/36110775 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_733_21 Text en Copyright: © 2022 Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Dhamodaran, S. Ahmed, Shafath Nandini, Vidyashree Marimuthu, Russia Ramadoss, Sethuraman Comparison of Retention of Two Different Attachment Systems Used in Implant-Supported Overdentures |
title | Comparison of Retention of Two Different Attachment Systems Used in Implant-Supported Overdentures |
title_full | Comparison of Retention of Two Different Attachment Systems Used in Implant-Supported Overdentures |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Retention of Two Different Attachment Systems Used in Implant-Supported Overdentures |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Retention of Two Different Attachment Systems Used in Implant-Supported Overdentures |
title_short | Comparison of Retention of Two Different Attachment Systems Used in Implant-Supported Overdentures |
title_sort | comparison of retention of two different attachment systems used in implant-supported overdentures |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9469436/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36110775 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_733_21 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dhamodarans comparisonofretentionoftwodifferentattachmentsystemsusedinimplantsupportedoverdentures AT ahmedshafath comparisonofretentionoftwodifferentattachmentsystemsusedinimplantsupportedoverdentures AT nandinividyashree comparisonofretentionoftwodifferentattachmentsystemsusedinimplantsupportedoverdentures AT marimuthurussia comparisonofretentionoftwodifferentattachmentsystemsusedinimplantsupportedoverdentures AT ramadosssethuraman comparisonofretentionoftwodifferentattachmentsystemsusedinimplantsupportedoverdentures |