Effects of disinfection with a vinegar-hydrogen peroxide mixture on the surface characteristics of denture acrylic resins.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate changes in the surface characteristics of two denture resins when disinfected with a vinegar-hydrogen peroxide (VHP) mixture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Microwave-polymerized or 3D printed acrylic resin disks were immersed for 900 min (simulating 90 daily uses) in the following solutions (N = 10): water; 0.5% sodium hypochlorite; hydrogen peroxide and water dilution (1:1 ratio); vinegar and water dilution (1:1 ratio); and VHP mixture. Surface roughness, Knoop microhardness, surface free energy, and scanning electron microscopic images were assessed before and after the immersions. Results were compared using the 2-way ANOVA for repeated measures and Tukey test, at 5% significance. RESULTS: Surface roughness and microhardness did not differ (P > .05) among the solutions and times. Surface free energy and its dispersive component increased (P < .05) for all solutions. All solutions, except for water and VHP mixture, degraded microtopography. CONCLUSIONS: The VHP mixture was not deleterious to conventional and 3D-printed resin surfaces. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Conventional and 3D printed resin dentures can be disinfected with a VHP mixture in a 1:1 ratio because this mixture does not substantially affect the surface characteristics after 90 daily immersions. On the contrary, sodium hypochlorite, hydrogen peroxide, and vinegar solutions, even in low concentrations, should be used with caution for denture disinfection because they may alter the resin microtopography over time.

Performance of complete dentures fabricated with the simplified and the traditional technique: A randomized clinical trial.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The simplified technique has been recommended for the fabrication of removable complete dentures. However, a consensus regarding the performance of the simplified and the traditional techniques is lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the performance of prostheses fabricated with the simplified and the traditional techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty participants were recruited and randomized into 2 groups: traditional technique (control group) and simplified technique (experimental group). The assessments were performed before treatment (baseline) and 2 and 4 months after adaptation to the new complete dentures. The variables evaluated were satisfaction, oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) by using the Brazilian version of the OHIP-EDENT, the quality of the prostheses, and, for the functional assessment, the masticatory performance and swallowing threshold. The data were analyzed by the Fisher exact test, the Mann-Whitney test, and the generalized equations estimating (GEE) method. RESULTS: At baseline, the mean ±standard deviation quality of the prostheses was 5.3 ±2.3 for the traditional technique and 4.9 ±2.3 for the simplified technique, and at 4 months, it was 9.3 ±0.9 and 9.1 ±0.9, respectively. For masticatory performance, the mean ±standard deviation X50 at baseline was 5.7 ±1.4 for the traditional technique and 5.7 ±0.9 for the simplified technique, and at 4 months, it was 3.8 ±1.2 and 3.7 ±0.9, respectively. The mean ±standard deviation OHRQoL at baseline was 14.1 ±8.6 for the traditional technique and 12.5 ±9.4 for the simplified technique, and at 4 months, it was 3.2 ±4.3 and 2.6 ±5.1, respectively. The mean ±standard deviation satisfaction at baseline was 9.5 ±3.9 for the traditional technique and 9.3 ±4.2 for the simplified technique; after 4 months, it was 14.8 ±2.0 for both techniques. There was a significant improvement (P<.05) for all variables in the study when comparing them at the baseline to those at the evaluation after provision of new complete dentures. There was no significant difference in all analyzed variables (P>.05) between the 2 techniques for prosthesis fabrication. CONCLUSIONS: The simplified technique appears to be a suitable alternative to the traditional technique for the fabrication of complete dentures, with similar performance.

Patient-reported outcome measures and clinical performance of implant-retained mandibular overdentures with stud and ball attachments: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Evidence regarding the retention system for a mandibular overdenture is important for treatment planning. However, the clinical performance of stud and ball attachments for mandibular overdenture retainers is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical performance and self-reported patient outcomes of ball and stud attachments as mandibular overdenture retainers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomized (RCTs) and nonrandomized (N-RCTs) controlled clinical trials were selected based on the eligibility criteria. The risk of bias was assessed by using the Cochrane Collaboration Tools, and the certainty of the evidence (COE) by using the grades of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) workshop approach. Meta-analyses according to the follow-up period were performed for implant survival, prosthetic maintenance and complications, bleeding on probing (BoP), marginal bone loss (MBL), satisfaction, and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs and 4 N-RCTs were included. Twelve studies presented a high risk of bias. The stud demonstrated a lower risk ratio (RR) (P<.001) for maintenance and complications concerning the need for matrix activation (RR 7.12 [2.65, 19.15]) (very low COE) and new overdentures (RR 2.47 [1.02, 5.96]) (moderate COE), ranging from 1 to 5 years of follow-up. Mean difference (MD) for MBL after 1 (MD 0.40 [0.28, 0.52]; P<.001) and 5 years (MD 0.18 [0.16, 0.20]; P<.001) was higher for ball attachments than that for stud (very low COE) attachments. Stud attachments also improved satisfaction (P<.001) when compared with ball attachments (very low COE). Implant survival rate (high COE), BoP (very low COE), and OHRQoL (low COE) were similar for the attachments. CONCLUSIONS: Stud and ball attachments are clinically appropriate options as mandibular overdenture retainers and are capable of restoring OHRQoL. Nevertheless, the stud showed greater improvement in satisfaction and less prosthetic aftercare and MBL.