MATERIAL AND METHODS: The three-dimensional (3D) finite element program (ANSYS software) was used to construct the mathematical model. Two 5-unit FPD'S were simulated, one with rigid connector and another one with nonrigid connector. For analysis, each of these models were subjected to axial and oblique forces under progressive loading (180, 180, 120, 120, 80 N force on first and second molars, premolars and canine respectively) and simultaneous loading (100, 100, 100, 100, 100 N force on first and second molars, premolars and canine respectively).
RESULTS: The rigid and nonrigid connector design have effect on stress distribution in 5-unit FPDs with pier abutments.
CONCLUSION: Oblique forces produce more stresses than vertical forces. Nonrigid connector resulted in decrease in stress at the level of prosthesis and increase in stress at the level of alveolar crest.
Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted among the GDPs of Karachi. A questionnaire was designed to collect data from 100 GDPs. The questionnaire included general/demographic information (practitioner's education, experience, and place of practice) and an average number of fixed prosthesis constructed by the GDP. The questionnaire was further categorized to evaluate the knowledge/practice of pontic design selection and latest recommendations.
Results: For the maxillary anterior segment, the ridge lap pontic was the most common (32%) followed by the modified ridge lap (28%). In the maxillary posterior segment, the ridge lap pontic was the most common (37%) followed by sanitary design (34%). For the mandibular anterior segment, the modified ridge lap (50%) was the most common followed by ridge lap pontic (17%). In case of the mandibular posterior segment, the sanitary design (34%) was the most common followed by ridge lap pontic (30%).
Conclusions: The pontic design selection for the fixed prosthesis is a neglected domain. The contemporary guidelines are not followed with full spirit by the GDPs leading to wide variations in the pontic design selection.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 20 IFPP (mean age 47.0; SD 12.9 years) and 28 ISOD (mean age 61.5; SD 9.1 years) patients received 2 mandibular implants. Metal ceramic nonsplinted fixed prostheses were provided in IFPP group, while in ISOD group, the mandibular overdentures were retained by nonsplinted attachments. Patients rated their oral health-related quality of life using OHIP-14 Malaysian version at baseline (T0), 2-3 months (T1) and 1 year (T2) postimplant treatment. Mean OHIP-14 for total and domain scores between groups and intervals was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA and t-test. Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for the comparison of mean score change and effect size, while the association between pre- and post-treatment scores was determined using multivariate linear regression modelling.
RESULTS: The total OHIP and domain scores before implant treatment were significantly higher (lower OHRQoL) in IFPP than in ISOD groups, except for physical pain where this domain showed similar impact in both groups. Postimplant scores between groups at T1 and T2 showed no significant difference. The mean score changes at T0-T1 and T0-T2 for total OHIP-14 and domains were significantly greater in IFPP except in the domains of physical pain and disability which showed no difference. Large effect size (ES) was observed for total OHIP-14 in IFPP while moderate in ISOD. Improved OHRQoL was dependent on the treatment group and pretreatment score.
CONCLUSION: Improvement in OHRQoL occurred following both mandibular implant-supported overdentures and implant fixed partial prostheses.