Search

Background: The impact of treatments on completely edentulous individuals on masticatory performance (MP), oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL), nutritional status (NS) and socio‐economic profile (SP) is unclear in the literature. Objective: To compare the MP, OHRQoL, NS and SP of totally edentulous elderly users of bimaxillary complete dentures (CD) and users of lower implant‐supported fixed complete dentures (IFCD). Methods: Forty participants were allocated into groups according to rehabilitation treatment (n = 20): bimaxillary CD (G1) and lower IFCD, and upper CD (G2). The evaluation of MP used almonds by the method of sieves. Four questionnaires (Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index–GOHAI and Oral Health Impact Profile Edent–OHIP‐Edent, Brazilian Economic Classification Criteria–ABEP and Mini Nutritional Assessment‐MNA) were applied to assess the OHRQoL, SP and NS of the elderly, respectively. After evaluating the statistical assumptions, the Mann–Whitney (α =.05) test was applied to compare the groups regarding MP, OHRQoL, NS and SP. Spearman's correlation (α =.05) was performed to verify the correlation between the MP, the OHRQoL and the NS of the participants. Results: G2 showed better MP (p <.05) in all masticatory cycles, OHRQoL (p <.05) and NS than the G1. However, the participants' self‐perception of oral health did not differ between groups (p <.05). A moderate negative correlation was found between MP and OHRQoL for 40 masticatory cycles (r2 = −0.513; p =.001). Conclusion: Individuals rehabilitated with IFCD had a higher average monthly family income and achieved superior behaviour in MP and OHRQoL, in addition to lower risks of malnutrition when compared to individuals using bimaxillary CD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to evaluate in vitro the accuracy of different splinting techniques using transfers combined with different tray types. Materials and Methods: The research group fabricated a maxillary master cast with four implants and a passive metallic bar on this master cast. For the impression techniques, 48 casts were used with six different impression techniques: (1) metal tray with resin splinted transfers, (2) metal tray with metal and resin splinted transfers, (3) plastic tray with resin splinted transfers, (4) plastic tray with metal and resin splinted transfers, (5) multifunctional guide with resin splinted transfers, and (6) multifunctional guide with metal and resin splinted transfers (n = 8) using polyvinyl siloxane impression material. This study used a passive metallic bar to measure the malalignment between the framework and the analogs (A, B, C, and D) in 2D and 3D. The master and experimental casts were scanned with a contact scanner to compare the accuracy in 3D impression techniques. Discrepancies between the analogs were measured in three x-, y-, and z-axes. Results: There was no statistically significant difference (P > .05) between the groups in vertical malalignments (2D). In the 3D evaluation, for the z-axis and combination of xz-axis, plastic tray with metal, and resin splinted transfers (z = 487 μm; xz = 888 μm), there was a statistically significant difference compared with the multifunctional guide and resin splinted transfers (z = 772 μm; xz = 1,380 μm). When analyzing by analog, in C, the multifunctional guide with metal and resin splinted transfers (302 μm) presented a statistically significant difference compared with the multifunctional guide and resin splinted transfers (492 μm). Conclusion: The evaluation methods for the accuracy impression technique presented different results between them. There was no difference in vertical malalignments (2D), but in 3D, the bonding with metal and acrylic resin presented better results than the bond with only acrylic resin when using the plastic tray and multifunctional guide, respectively, in the z-axis and the combination between the xz-axes. The bonding technique of the transfers with metal and acrylic resin presents better results in the 3D analysis for the multifunctional guide impressions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The purposes of the present study were as follows: (1) to conduct a randomised crossover clinical trial to evaluate masticatory performance in wearers of conventional complete dentures in both arcs with conventional balanced occlusion (CBO) and lingualised balanced occlusion (LBO), using almonds as natural test food chewed for (a) 30 chewing cycles, (b) 40 chewing cycles and (c) until the subject felt ready to swallow and (2) to perform a randomised crossover clinical trial of oral health self‐perception through the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) questionnaire. Background: During rehabilitation with full dentures, achieving stability and retention is essential for masticatory performance. A factor that can act is the appropriate occlusal scheme to be used, although the literature is full of discussions as to the most suitable occlusal scheme to be used, being CBO and LBO the most used in complete dentures. Materials and Methods: The clinical trial was conducted with 30 participants (14 males and 16 females; average age 65.8 years). A base of interchangeable posterior teeth in the lower dentures was used, thereby changing the occlusal schemes without needing to make another complete denture. The masticatory tests and GOHAI application were conducted in two sessions: first with each occlusal scheme, and second only after participants did not report discomfort with dentures. The analysis of variance for the mixed repeated‐measures test (ANOVA) was used to verify the results (α = 0.05). Results: The results showed no difference in masticatory performance according to the occlusal scheme (P =.519). The masticatory performance increased with the number of cycles (P <.001) tested, regardless of the type of occlusion scheme, and oral health self‐perception was higher after the second masticatory evaluation session (P =.027). Conclusion: The masticatory performance was similar between the two occlusal schemes, increasing according to the number of chewing cycles. The adaptive period is relevant, regardless of the occlusion scheme, because the time factor was decisive for the improvements noted in the oral health self‐perception of the participants (according to the GOHAI results). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Universidade Estadual Paulista. Revista de Odontologia is the property of Universidade Estadual Paulista. Revista de Odontologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background Objective Methods Results Conclusions The literature is unclear about how the different attachment systems for overdentures impact the maximum bite force, the masticatory efficiency and how this impact in the oral health self‐perception in patients.To evaluate the effect of two attachment systems (O‐ring and Locator) for mandibular overdenture using single implant on quality of life, maximum bite force (BF) and masticatory efficiency (ME).Twenty‐eight completely edentulous denture wearers with a mandibular symphysis implant were randomly selected and allocated into two groups in a crossover study, considering O‐ring and Locator attachment types. The quality of life and self‐perception of oral health were assessed using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP‐Edent) and Geriatric Index of Determination of Oral Health (GOHAI) questionnaires, respectively. BF was measured using a gnathodynamometer and ME by chewing silicone cubes and almonds in different numbers of cycles.There was no difference between the attachment systems about self‐perceived oral health and impact on quality of life (p > .05). The O‐ring‐type system obtained a significantly higher BF than the locator‐type system (p = .04). Regardless of the food chewed, no statistically significant difference was observed with the type of attachment (p > .05). The ME was directly proportional to the masticatory cycles only for almonds (p < .01).Locator and O‐ring inserts had a similar impact on patients' quality of life, self‐perception of oral health and ME. Additionally, the O‐ring system exhibited superior properties in the BF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The literature is unclear about how the different attachment systems for overdentures impact the maximum bite force, the masticatory efficiency and how this impact in the oral health self-perception in patients., Objective: To evaluate the effect of two attachment systems (O-ring and Locator) for mandibular overdenture using single implant on quality of life, maximum bite force (BF) and masticatory efficiency (ME)., Methods: Twenty-eight completely edentulous denture wearers with a mandibular symphysis implant were randomly selected and allocated into two groups in a crossover study, considering O-ring and Locator attachment types. The quality of life and self-perception of oral health were assessed using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-Edent) and Geriatric Index of Determination of Oral Health (GOHAI) questionnaires, respectively. BF was measured using a gnathodynamometer and ME by chewing silicone cubes and almonds in different numbers of cycles., Results: There was no difference between the attachment systems about self-perceived oral health and impact on quality of life (p > .05). The O-ring-type system obtained a significantly higher BF than the locator-type system (p = .04). Regardless of the food chewed, no statistically significant difference was observed with the type of attachment (p > .05). The ME was directly proportional to the masticatory cycles only for almonds (p < .01)., Conclusions: Locator and O-ring inserts had a similar impact on patients' quality of life, self-perception of oral health and ME. Additionally, the O-ring system exhibited superior properties in the BF., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Endodontically treated teeth with extensive structural damage present higher fragility due to the low amount and worse quality of the reminiscent tissues of the crown., Materials and Methods: The present in vitro study evaluated the effect of different intraradicular retainers and cementation agents on the fracture resistance of devitalized teeth. Incisive teeth ( n = 40) of bovine mandibles were used. After preparation of the root canals, they were immersed in polyether, in a polyvinyl chloride cylinder containing acrylic resin, to simulate the periodontal ligament. The specimens were randomly divided into four groups ( n = 10), according to the type of retainer (anatomical or main with accessory posts) and resin cement used (conventional resin cement - RelyX ARC or self-adhesive resin cement - RelyX U200). The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C and submitted to fracture resistance testing. ANOVA and Tukey's test were applied for data analysis, with significance level set at 5%., Results: There was no interaction between cement type and intraradicular retainers ( P = 0.56) or even between the types of cement used ( P = 0.65). However, in the variation of the types of retainers, the group using main with accessory posts presented greater resistance to the fracture than the anatomical post ( P = 0.04)., Conclusion: Different cementing agents have no effect on the fracture strength of devitalized teeth, unlike the use of posts, in which the use of accessory post proved more resistant when compared to the anatomical post., Competing Interests: The authors of this manuscript declare that they have no conflicts of interest, real or perceived, financial or non-financial in this article., (Copyright: © 2020 Dental Research Journal.)