Premium
Chewing efficiency and electromyographic activity of masseter muscle with three designs of implant‐supported mandibular overdentures. A cross‐over study
Author(s) -
Elsyad Moustafa A.,
Hegazy Salah A. F.,
Hammouda Nelly I.,
AlTonbary Gilan Y.,
Habib Ahmed A.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.12137
Subject(s) - dentures , dentistry , implant , masseter muscle , medicine , osseointegration , orthodontics , mandible (arthropod mouthpart) , electromyography , surgery , physical medicine and rehabilitation , botany , biology , genus
Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the effect of three designs for implant‐supported mandibular overdenture on the chewing efficiency and electromyographic ( EMG ) activity of masseter muscles. Material and methods Eighteen edentulous patients received new maxillary and mandibular dentures (control, CD ) before implant placement. After using the dentures for 3 months, patients were randomly divided into six blocks (three patients/block) and received four implants in canine and first molar areas of the mandible. Following osseointegration period, new duplicate mandibular overdentures were successively connected to the implants with: (i) ball attachment on two implants (2 BOD ), (ii) bar attachment on two implants (2 ROD ), and (iii) bar attachments on four implants (4 ROD ) in a random order. Chewing efficiency was measured using chewing gum, and EMG was recorded during clenching (with or without food). Evaluations were made 3 months after using each of the following prostheses: CD , 2 BOD , 2 ROD , and 4 ROD . Results All implant‐supported overdentures showed a significant increase in chewing efficiency and EMG values when compared to CD . These values increased significantly with 4 ROD when compared to 2 BOD or 2 ROD prostheses. There was no significant difference in chewing efficiency and EMG between 2 BOD and 2 ROD prostheses. Conclusion Four‐implant‐supported overdentures seem to present a functional advantage vs. two‐implant‐supported overdentures, independent of the chosen attachment system.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom