Effects of attachment type and palatal coverage on oral perception and patient satisfaction in maxillary implant-supported complete denture patients.

AIM: The effect of oral rehabilitation on the oral perception of implant-supported overdenture patients is a concern. This study evaluated the effects of the attachment type and palatal coverage on oral perception and patient satisfaction in maxillary implant-supported complete denture patients. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The correlation between oral perceptual ability (OPA) and patient satisfaction in three groups was investigated. Group I consisted of dentate individuals (n = 40), Group II consisted of maxillary implant-supported complete denture patients with bar attachments and palatal coverage (n = 12), and Group III of maxillary implant-supported complete denture patients with magnetic attachments and palatal coverage (n = 14). In addition, implant-supported maxillary overdentures with bar attachments, with (Group II; n = 12) and without (Group IV; n = 18) palatal coverage, were examined in terms of patient satisfaction and OPA. The relationship between OPA and patient satisfaction was assessed with the Turkish version of the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-TR-14) satisfaction survey. To compare oral sensory function among the groups, tactile awareness and pressure awareness were assessed. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in OHIP-TR-14 scores between Groups II and III. In addition, there was no correlation between oral tactile function and patient satisfaction in Groups II and III. For patients with maxillary bar-retained implant-supported overdentures, palatal coverage did not affect the correlation between OPA and patient satisfaction, lateral pressure threshold, or tactile thickness threshold. CONCLUSION: According to the results of the study, whether maxillary implant-supported overdentures were made with a bar- or magnetic-type retainer, and whether bar-retained implant-supported overdentures had an open or closed palate did not affect the correlation between patient satisfaction and oral perception.

Evaluation and comparison of the film thicknesses of six temporary cements before and after thermal cycling.

AIM: Temporary cement can be applied for both permanent and temporary cementation of implant-supported fixed restorations. These cements must have certain physical and mechanical properties. Specifically, the film thickness directly affects the cement's clinical success. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the film thicknesses of six temporary cements before and after thermal cycling. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-four metal copings with uniform holding loops were fabricated and divided into 12 groups of seven samples each. Six of these groups were subjected to a thermal cycling process. The copings were cemented to solid implant abutments (Implance Solid Abutment, 3.5-mm cervical diameter, 2 mm high, 6° taper, Implance Dental Implant System; AGS Medical, Trabzon, Turkey), using six different types of cement. The fitting surfaces were coated with the luting cements. After steeping in artificial saliva for 24 hours, the specimens were subjected to pull-out testing using an Instron machine. Specimens in the thermal cycling groups were subjected to 700 thermal cycles (36-55°C) prior to pull-out testing. RESULTS: The Mann-Whitney U test revealed significant differences between the retention values of the thermal cycling (+) and thermal cycling (-) groups (U = 153.0, P < 0.01). The retention values of the groups subjected to thermal cycling were significantly lower than those of the cements that were not subjected to thermal cycling. Thermal cycling also affected the film thickness significantly (Wilcoxon signed rank test, Z = -5.533, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Thermal cycling affects the film thickness and retention of temporary cements significantly. The retention value was significantly higher for glass ionomer cement than for the other cements tested, and this cement also exhibited greatest film thickness.

The In Vitro comparison of the retention of an implant-supported stud attachment locator and straumann ball attachment at different angulations.

AIM: In this study, we investigated the retention of two attachment types, Straumann ball (SB) and Straumann Locator® (SL) attachments, on different implant angulations and identified the most appropriate treatment type or attachment system for each angulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The attachments placed on angulation of 0°-, 10°-, and 20° implants were subjected to 1440 vertical insertion-separation cycles. The retention values of the attachments after 0, 720, and 1440 cycles were measured using the Instron machine. In addition, scanning electron microscopy images of the attachments and abutments were obtained before and after the insertion-separation process. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the SB and SL attachments that were placed on 0° after 1440 cycles (P < 0.05) and between 20° SB and 20° SL attachments after 720 and 1440 cycles (P < 0.05) in terms of retention. No significant difference was observed between 20° SB and 20° SL attachments at 0 cycles (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In implants with a 20° angle, retention of stud attachments decreased more than ball attachments after use. Thus, the total angle between the implants should not be <20° if long-term retention is desired when using stud attachments. For implants with angles >20°, 6-month patient controls are required to control retention of attachments by considering factors in the mouth with the two tested attachment systems.