|
 
 |
| CATEGORY: ORIGINAL RESEARCH |
|
| Year : 2020 | Volume
: 20
| Issue : 5 | Page : 11-12 |
|
Evaluation of the retention characteristics and micro stress analysis of different attachment systems in regard to implant retained obturator
Subhabrata Maiti
Saveetha Dental College & Hospital, Chennai, India
| Date of Web Publication | 8-Jan-2021 |
Correspondence Address:
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.306330
How to cite this article:
Maiti S. Evaluation of the retention characteristics and micro stress analysis of different attachment systems in regard to implant retained obturator. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2020;20, Suppl S1:11-2 |
How to cite this URL:
Maiti S. Evaluation of the retention characteristics and micro stress analysis of different attachment systems in regard to implant retained obturator. J Indian Prosthodont Soc [serial online] 2020 [cited 2021 Jan 28];20, Suppl S1:11-2. Available from: https://www.j-ips.org/text.asp?2020/20/5/11/306330 |
Introduction: In, maxillectomy patient, the use of an obturator can result in improvement in speech, mastication, swallowing and aesthetics. Retention is the basic requirement of any dental prosthesis. Also, stress analysis plays a vital role as undesirable axial forces have proven to be harmful for the implant. The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate the retention characteristics and micro stress analysis around the implant while using three different types of attachments (ball, bar, locator) to retain an obturator.
Methodology: A 3-d printed stereo lithographic skull model replicating the partial maxillectomy was fabricated. Commercially available implants (MIS-3.75/11.5) were placed on the canine and first molar region of non-defective site of maxilla. The implants were retained using resin cement to simulate Osseo integration. Heat cure acrylic resin obturator were fabricated and provision was made to receive three different prefabricated attachment systems i.e. ball attachment (MIS), bar and clip attachment (CEKA), and locator attachment stud type (zest anchors, USA).
Result: Amongst all three attachments tested, the bar/ clip design attachment shows the highest retention with statistical significant difference when compared with the ball and locator attachment (p<0.05) and locator attachment shows least micro stress around implant with statistical significant difference when compared with bar and ball attachment (p<0.05).
Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it is concluded that the maximum retention can be attained by bar & clip attachment and the lowest stresses were obtained through locator attachment.
|
Search Pubmed for