A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

The Effect of Mini Dental Implant Number on Mandibular Overdenture Retention and Attachment Wear. | LitMetric

The Effect of Mini Dental Implant Number on Mandibular Overdenture Retention and Attachment Wear.

Biomed Res Int

Division of Dentistry, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Coupland 3 Building, UK Manchester M13 9PL.

Published: May 2023

Purpose: Evaluate the effect of different mini-implant numbers on overdenture retention and evaluate attachment wear following one year of simulated placement/removal. . Nine models simulating atrophic mandibles held 27 mini dental implants in three groups of 2, 3, and 4 mini-implants. A total of 1080 simulated placement/removal cycles were carried out, and a digital force gauge was used to measure the overdenture dislodgment force. The means of the retention forces were analyzed using SPSS with one-way ANOVA and post hoc ( < 0.05). The inner diameter of attachment inserts was evaluated using a light microscope before and after testing. A paired -test was used to compare the mean of inner ring diameters ( < 0.05).

Results: The retention was significantly reduced regardless of the mini dental implant number, but the number affected overdenture retention. The placement of 4 mini dental implants provided higher retention and less reduction in retentiveness. However, no significant difference was found when 3 mini dental implants were compared to 2 mini dental implants ( = 0.21). Microscopic examination showed abrasion wear in all inserts following testing. However, the inserts of the 4 mini dental implants showed less wear than those used for 2 or 3 mini dental implants with ≤ 0.001 and ≤ 0.001, respectively.

Conclusion: Mini dental implant overdenture retention force and attachment wear could improve by increasing the mini dental implants to 4. However, there was no difference in retention force or attachment wear when 2 or 3 mini dental implant overdentures were compared.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10164865PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/7099761DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

mini dental
44
dental implants
28
dental implant
16
overdenture retention
16
attachment wear
16
mini
11
dental
10
implant number
8
retention
8
simulated placement/removal
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!