ArticleBMC oral health2024
Retention of implant retained obturator using two implant placement configurations for maxillectomy cases: in-vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplant-retained obturators for maxillectomy cases have several advantages over traditional obturators but prosthetic design for specific conditions after maxillary resection has several challenges and the appropriate implant placement configuration is essential for improving retention and the stability of the implant-retained obturator.
objectivesThe present study aimed to assess the retention force of using linear and nonlinear implant placement configurations using ball and socket attachment in implant-retained obturators at the initial retention and after simulation of six months of use. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo identical epoxy resin maxillary models of a completely edentulous unilateral maxillary defect (Brown's class IIb) were used for implant placement, in the first model three implants were arranged with linear placement configuration, and in the second model three implants were arranged in nonlinear placement configuration. For proper sample sizing, 26 models and obturator were used. Two equal groups of obturators (13 for each group) were constructed, each with a different implant placement configuration. Both groups used the same attachment design (a non-splinted ball attachment). Using a cyclic loading machine that served as a dental insertion and removal simulator, each study group was subjected to 500 tension-compression cycles simulating 6 months of use. Using the universal testing machine, each obturator was removed at a speed of 50 mm/min for the crosshead. peak load to dislodgement was measured at the initial retention and after the simulations of six months of use. Data were analyzed using independent and paired t-tests while percent change was analyzed using the Mann Whitney U test.
resultsThere were a statistically significant differences in retention between the nonlinear implant placement configuration for Brown's class IIb maxillectomy and the linear implant placement configuration at initial retention evaluation with p-value of < 0.0001 and after simulation of six months of usage with p-value of < 0.0001 Also, after simulation of 6 months of use group I lose - 24.87 (10.16) % of its retention while group II lose - 17.49 (7.78) %.
conclusionsNon-linear implant placement is more retentive at the initial retention and after simulation of six months of use than linear and loses less retention after usage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.