English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background: The number and location of dental implants for implant overdenture therapy are varied and deemed arbitrary. Yet, less favorable prosthetic outcomes are reported more often. Purpose: the purpose of the current study was to evaluate the influence of implant number and location on the retention and chewing efficiency of implant supported mandibular overdenture using ball attachment. Materials and Methods: Fifteen completely edentulous male participants, with a mean age 55year, were involved in this withinpatient study. All patients received a new set of conventional complete dentures before implant positioning. Three implants were placed in the midline and first premolar areas in the mandible, using a stereolithographic template. After healing period, the conventional dentures were converted into implant supported overdentures attached, with ball attachments, to single (group I), two (group II) and three implants (group III) respectively. Retention was evaluated immediately after overdenture delivery (T0) and 1 month later (T1) by forcemeter. Masticatory efficiency was also assessed one month after denture insertion (T1) by two-colored chewing gum. Unmixed Fraction (UF) was then computed. Results: The highest retention values were revealed in group III followed by group II and group I respectively for both observation times. Much higher values were elaborated after one month of dentures delivery (T1) compared to (T0). Masticatory efficiency values showed a statistically significance difference between group (II) and group (I) after 5, 10 and 20 strokes (P<0.001).Whereas, no statistically significant difference between the two groups was shown after 30 and 50 strokes (P>0.05). A statistically significance difference between group III and group I was noticed after 5,10,20,30 and 50 strokes (P<0.001). Nonetheless, masticatory efficiency values exhibited no significant differences between Group II and Group III (P>0.05). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this short-term clinical study, edentulusim treated by 3implant overdentures has appropriate promising outcomes. Based on this study finding, a triangular design of overdeture is a reliable option for maximizing both retention and chewing efficiency when compared to single implant or 2-implant mandibular supported overdentures.

A Within-Patient Comparative Study of The Influence of Number and Distribution of Ball Attachment Retained Mandibular Overdenture