Digital wear analysis and retention of poly-ether-ether-ketone retentive inserts versus conventional nylon inserts in locator retained mandibular overdentures: in-vitro study.
Denture, Overlay
Benzophenones
Nylons
Ketones
/ chemistry
Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported
Materials Testing
Denture Retention
Polymers
Polyethylene Glycols
/ chemistry
Humans
Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
Surface Properties
In Vitro Techniques
Mandible
Dental Restoration Wear
Denture Design
Dental Stress Analysis
Saliva, Artificial
Dental implants
Digital
Implant overdentures
Nylon
Overdenture
PEEK
Retention
Wear analysis
Journal
Clinical oral investigations
ISSN: 1436-3771
Titre abrégé: Clin Oral Investig
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9707115
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Aug 2024
06 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
10
04
2024
accepted:
14
07
2024
medline:
6
8
2024
pubmed:
6
8
2024
entrez:
6
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
this study aimed to digitally compare wear behavior and retention between PEEK and nylon retentive inserts used in locator-retained, mandibular implant overdentures when attachment design and size were standardized. A total of sixty-four inserts (32 PEEK and 32 nylon inserts); were picked-up in implant overdentures. Overdentures of both groups were submerged in artificial saliva and mounted to chewing simulator. After 480,000 chewing cycles (equivalent to 2 years of clinical use) all inserts were scanned by scanning electron microscope (SEM), then all acquired images were digitally analyzed by software to detect and compare quantitative and qualitative changes of inserts in both groups. On the other hand, retention of both groups was measured by universal testing machine and the collected data was statistically analyzed using one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test with significance level set at P ≤ 0.05. PEEK inserts showed significantly higher mean retentive values compared to the nylon inserts in the control group. Also, PEEK retentive inserts exhibited statistically lower mean wear values than the control group P ≥ 0.000. Qualitative investigation revealed significant and more pronounced changes in the surface roughness of nylon inserts compared to PEEK ones. Regarding retention, wear behavior and dimension stability, PEEK can be recommended as retentive insert material in cases of locator-retained mandibular implant overdentures. PEEK inserts offer enhanced retention, reduced wear, and greater dimensional stability over two years time interval. Clinically, this reduces prosthodontic maintenance and adjustments, improving patient satisfaction and long-term prosthetic success.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39105859
doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-05831-y
pii: 10.1007/s00784-024-05831-y
doi:
Substances chimiques
Benzophenones
0
Nylons
0
Ketones
0
polyetheretherketone
31694-16-3
Polymers
0
Polyethylene Glycols
3WJQ0SDW1A
Saliva, Artificial
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
468Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Yamazaki T, Martiniuk ALC, Irie K et al (2016) Does a mandibular overdenture improve nutrient intake and markers of nutritional status better than conventional complete denture? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011799 . 6:
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011799
pubmed: 27489156
pmcid: 4985797
Boven GC, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Meijer HJA (2015) Improving masticatory performance, bite force, nutritional state and patient’s satisfaction with implant overdentures: a systematic review of the literature. J Oral Rehabil 42:220–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12241
doi: 10.1111/joor.12241
pubmed: 25307515
Jawad S, Barclay C, Whittaker J, Feine J (2021) A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of mandibular implant overdentures retained by stud attachments. J Prosthodont 30:13–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13205
doi: 10.1111/jopr.13205
Miler AMQP, Correia ARM, de Rocha JM C, et al (2017) Locator
pubmed: 29806650
Kim H-Y, Lee J-Y, Shin S-W, Bryant SR (2012) Attachment systems for mandibular implant overdentures: a systematic review. J Adv Prosthodont 4:197–203. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2012.4.4.197
doi: 10.4047/jap.2012.4.4.197
pubmed: 23236571
pmcid: 3517957
Wendler F, Diehl L, Shayanfard P, Karl M (2023) Implant-supported overdentures: current status and preclinical testing of a novel attachment system. J Clin Med 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12031012
Wakam R, Benoit A, Mawussi KB, Gorin C (2022) Evaluation of Retention, wear, and maintenance of attachment systems for single- or two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a systematic review. Mater (Basel) 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15051933
Cho K, Lee J, Park S (2021) Recent advances in materials for attachment inserts in dental implantology. J Prosthodont Res 65:123–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2020.12.001
doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2020.12.001
Xu X, He L, Zhu B et al (2017) Advances in polymeric materials for dental applications. Polym Chem 8:807–823. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6PY01957A
doi: 10.1039/C6PY01957A
Al-Salihi Z, Baroudi K, Al-Salihi A, Al-Salihi S (2023) Polyetheretherketone ({PEEK}) in dentistry: a review of its properties, clinical applications and future perspectives. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2022.09.009
doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2022.09.009
Mark HF, Bikales NM, Overberger CG, Menges G JIK (2005) Encyclopedia of polymer science and engineering. Wiley, New York
Passia N, Ghazal M, Kern M (2016) Long-term retention behaviour of resin matrix attachment systems for overdentures. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 57:88–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.11.038
doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.11.038
pubmed: 26705935
Schwitalla AD, Abou-Emara M, Zimmermann T et al (2016) The applicability of PEEK-based abutment screws. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 63:244–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.06.024
doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.06.024
pubmed: 27434650
Chikunov I, Doan P, Vahidi F (2008) Implant-retained partial overdenture with resilient attachments. J Prosthodont off J Am Coll Prosthodont 17:141–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00261.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00261.x
Abdelaziz MS, Fawzy AM, Ghali RM, Nassar HI (2022) Retention of different attachment systems for digitally designed mandibular implant overdenture. J Prosthodont 0:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13516
doi: 10.1111/jopr.13516
Ahmed Elmorsy A, Ahmed Ibraheem E, Ela A et al (2015) Do flexible acrylic resin lingual flanges improve retention of mandibular complete dentures? J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 5:365. https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0762.165928
doi: 10.4103/2231-0762.165928
pubmed: 26539387
pmcid: 4606599
Abdelfattah Mohamed AM, El Homossany MEMB, Abdelmoniem SM, Abdelrahman TY (2022) Comparison of tensile bond strength of ball attachments made of different materials to root canal dentin after chewing simulation. BMC Oral Health 22:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02282-3
doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02282-3
Rutkunas V, Mizutani H, Takahashi H, Iwasaki N (2011) Wear simulation effects on overdenture stud attachments. Dent Mater J 30:845–853. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2011-057
doi: 10.4012/dmj.2011-057
pubmed: 22123008
Guédat C, Nagy U, Schimmel M et al (2018) Clinical performance of LOCATOR
doi: 10.1002/cre2.122
pubmed: 30181910
pmcid: 6115879
Charan J, Biswas T (2013) How to calculate sample size for different study designs in medical research? Indian J Psychol Med 35:121–126. https://doi.org/10.4103/0253-7176.116232
doi: 10.4103/0253-7176.116232
pubmed: 24049221
pmcid: 3775042
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39:175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
doi: 10.3758/bf03193146
pubmed: 17695343
Sharaf MY, Eskander A, Afify M (2022) Novel PEEK retentive elements versus conventional retentive elements in mandibular overdentures: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Dent 2022:6947756. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6947756
Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JYK (2003) Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 90:121–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00212-9
doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00212-9
pubmed: 12886205
Marin DOM, Leite ARP, de Oliveira Junior NM et al (2018) Retention force and wear characteristics of three attachment systems after dislodging cycles. Braz Dent J 29:576–582. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201802074
doi: 10.1590/0103-6440201802074
pubmed: 30517481
Botega DM, Mesquita MF, Henriques GEP, Vaz LG (2004) Retention force and fatigue strength of overdenture attachment systems. J Oral Rehabil 31:884–889. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01308.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01308.x
pubmed: 15369470
Evtimovska E, Masri R, Driscoll CF, Romberg E (2009) The change in retentive values of locator attachments and hader clips over time. J Prosthodont off J Am Coll Prosthodont 18:479–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00474.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00474.x
Daou EE (2013) Stud attachments for the mandibular implant-retained overdentures: prosthetic complications. A literature review. Saudi Dent J 25:53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2012.12.003
doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2012.12.003
pubmed: 23960557
pmcid: 3723078
Choi J-W, Bae J-H, Jeong C-M, Huh J-B (2017) Retention and wear behaviors of two implant overdenture stud-type attachments at different implant angulations. J Prosthet Dent 117:628–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.027
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.027
pubmed: 27863857
El Khourazaty N (2017) Evaluation of retention properties of two different stud attachments in mandibular implant overdentures. Egypt Dent J 63:2701–2707. https://doi.org/10.21608/edj.2017.76232
doi: 10.21608/edj.2017.76232
Wichmann N, Kern M, Taylor T et al (2020) Retention and wear of resin matrix attachments for implant overdentures. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 110:103901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103901
doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103901
pubmed: 32957206
Rabbani S, Juszczyk A, Clark R, Radford D (2015) Investigation of retentive force reduction and wear of the locator attachment system with different implant angulations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 30:556–563. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3687
doi: 10.11607/jomi.3687
pubmed: 25671627
Tehini G, Baba NZ, Majzoub Z et al (2019) In vitro effect of mastication on the retention and wear of locator attachments in a flat mandibular ridge model. J Prosthodont 28:e744–e751. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12940
doi: 10.1111/jopr.12940
pubmed: 29968276
Emera RMK, Elgamal M, Albadwei MM (2019) Surface wear of all Zicronia, all PEEK and zirconia-peek telescopic attachments for two implants retained mandibular complete overdentures. In-vitro study using scanning electron microscope. IOSR J Dent Med Sci e-ISSN 18:59–68. https://doi.org/10.9790/0853-1802095968
doi: 10.9790/0853-1802095968
Basamtabar M, Imani MM, Safari-Faramani R et al (2021) Relationship of anteroposterior position of maxillary central incisors with the forehead in an adult Iranian subpopulation: a cross-sectional study. Int Orthod 19:480–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2021.05.006
doi: 10.1016/j.ortho.2021.05.006
pubmed: 34154929
Salehi R, Shayegh SS, Johnston WMHS (2019) Effects of interimplant distance and cyclic dislodgement on retention of LOCATOR and ball attachments: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent