Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Prosthesis Retention”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,693 records · Page 94Linked to original sources
PubMed2000

Fabrication of a two-piece superstructure for a fixed detachable implant-supported mandibular complete denture.

This article describes a procedure to fabricate a 2-piece superstructure for a fixed detachable implant-supported mandibular complete denture prosthesis. With this unique technique, unsuitable implant angulation can be corrected, and retention of the second superstructure is accomplished with 2 esthetically positioned screws and an antirotational attachment.

Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported↗
PubMed1999

A 5-year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction.

Prosthetic outcome and patient satisfaction were evaluated in order to investigate whether there is a need or advantage to splint two implants in the mandible retaining a hinging overdenture. This study included 36 fully edentulous patients randomly divided into three groups according to the attachment system they received: magnets, ball attachments or straight bars (reference group). None of the implants failed during the whole observation period in any of the groups. After 5 years of observation, the Bar group presented the highest retention capacity and the least prosthetic complications but revealed more mucositis and gingival hyperplasia. Patient satisfaction rated similar for all groups although the Magnet group showed lower retention forces. All patients would repeat the same treatment even though the majority of the Magnet group would prefer a more retentive solution because of limited denture stability.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Treatment outcomes of fixed or removable implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous maxilla. Part I: patients' assessments.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Distinct clinical parameters determine whether fixed or removable implant-supported prostheses are indicated to restore the edentulous maxilla. However, there is a strong belief that fixed implant prostheses meet with greater patient acceptance and satisfaction, but this may differ from the patients' perceptions, their psychological responses to treatment, and their assessments of the treatment outcome. PURPOSE: This prospective clinical study compared the treatment outcomes of fixed and removable implant-supported restorations in the edentulous maxilla with the main emphasis on the patient's point of view. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty patients who requested an implant-supported superstructure to restore the edentulous maxilla were asked to complete a questionnaire measuring their satisfaction with the present situation and the psychologic impact of their oral health status with their responses marked on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Ten patients were treated with a fixed, screw-retained implant prosthesis (group 1), and 10 were treated with a removable, implant-supported and bar-retained overdenture (group 2). Six months after prosthetic rehabilitation, patients were again given the questionnaire to assess their psychologic well-being and satisfaction with the implant-supported restoration. RESULTS: Both prosthesis designs were associated with significant improvements in comfort and retention, function, esthetics and appearance, taste, speech, and self-esteem. No difference was found between the 2 groups with respect to how the patients assessed the implant therapy. However, the results indicated that patients in group 2 experienced greater differences between pretreatment and posttreatment scores for the parameters esthetics, taste, and speech. Treatment costs per unit were significantly higher in group 1 than in group 2. CONCLUSION: Patients in groups 1 and 2 were similarly satisfied with their implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous maxilla with regard to their well-being and the cost-utility, irrespective of whether the restoration was fixed or removable.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

A mechanically retained, four part oral and facial prosthesis: a clinical report.

The design of a prosthesis depends not only on anatomical and physiological factors, but also needs to encompass patient's socio-economic limitations and psychological needs. A four-part prosthesis for a patient with a maxillary and orbital defect was designed to be easy for the patient to insert, remove and clean, retentive without requiring sophisticated attachments or the use of adhesives, and made from economically viable materials. The denture was attached to an acrylic resin core which in turn clipped into a silicone glove obturator. The facial section fastened onto the ocular "button" on a larger, separate core, which then connected into the orbital opening of the obturator. The entire assembly was self-retentive, yet each component could also be worn separately if the need arose. This provided a functional prosthesis as well as psychological benefits to the patient who had no access to medical facilities or supplies in her rural home town.

Acrylic Resins↗
PubMed1983

Cast circumferential and wire clasps for obturator retention.

The indications and rationale for using cast circumferential and wire clasps for obtaining retention of obturator prostheses have been presented and discussed. Only the test of time can prove the effectiveness of an obturator design. The infinite variability of physical and patient factors demands understanding and application of basic fundamentals and, in the final analysis, good clinical judgment. Clasping is only one part of the obturator, and it must fit harmoniously into the overall design of the prosthesis. How the clasp contributes to support and bracing as well as retention must always be considered.

Denture Retention↗