- Treffer 1 von 1
Ball versus Locator\(^®\) attachments: a retrospective study on prosthetic maintenance and effect on oral-health-related quality of life
Zitieren Sie bitte immer diese URN: urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-228909
- Locator\(^®\) and ball attachments are well-established systems to attach overdentures to two inter-foraminal implants. This study aimed to evaluate differences between the two systems regarding prosthetic maintenance and patients’ oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). Dental records of patients with a mandibular implant-retained overdenture were retrospectively analyzed. Prosthetic maintenance measures involving the denture suprastructure and attachment matrix and patrix were analyzed. Furthermore, the Oral Health Impact Profile-G14Locator\(^®\) and ball attachments are well-established systems to attach overdentures to two inter-foraminal implants. This study aimed to evaluate differences between the two systems regarding prosthetic maintenance and patients’ oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). Dental records of patients with a mandibular implant-retained overdenture were retrospectively analyzed. Prosthetic maintenance measures involving the denture suprastructure and attachment matrix and patrix were analyzed. Furthermore, the Oral Health Impact Profile-G14 (OHIP-G14) was used to evaluate OHRQoL. Results were analyzed by means of Kaplan–Meier analysis and Student’s t- and log-rank tests. The records of 122 patients were evaluated. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis revealed a significant difference between ball attachments (Group B; n patients = 47) and Locator\(^®\) attachments (Group L; n patients = 75) regarding the occurrence of denture fractures (p < 0.001) and events affecting the matrix (p = 0.028) and patrix (p = 0.030). Group L had a significantly lower total OHIP-G14 score than Group B (p = 0.002). The most common maintenance events were matrix-related and denture relining for both attachment systems. Group B required more maintenance measures than Group L. Moreover, patients in Group L had better OHRQoL than patients in Group B.…
Autor(en): | Silvia Brandt, Hans-Christoph Lauer, Michael Fehrenz, Jan-Frederik Güth, Georgios Romanos, Anna Winter |
---|---|
URN: | urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-228909 |
Dokumentart: | Artikel / Aufsatz in einer Zeitschrift |
Institute der Universität: | Medizinische Fakultät / Poliklinik für Zahnärztliche Prothetik |
Sprache der Veröffentlichung: | Englisch |
Titel des übergeordneten Werkes / der Zeitschrift (Englisch): | Materials |
ISSN: | 1996-1944 |
Erscheinungsjahr: | 2021 |
Band / Jahrgang: | 14 |
Heft / Ausgabe: | 4 |
Aufsatznummer: | 1051 |
Originalveröffentlichung / Quelle: | Materials (2021) 14:4, 1051. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14041051 |
DOI: | https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14041051 |
Allgemeine fachliche Zuordnung (DDC-Klassifikation): | 6 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften / 61 Medizin und Gesundheit / 610 Medizin und Gesundheit |
Freie Schlagwort(e): | OHIP-G14; OHRQoL; attachment; ball; locator; overdenture |
Datum der Freischaltung: | 08.08.2022 |
Datum der Erstveröffentlichung: | 23.02.2021 |
Lizenz (Deutsch): | CC BY: Creative-Commons-Lizenz: Namensnennung 4.0 International |