RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Denture adhesives can be useful in improving patients' satisfaction with complete dentures. However, comparison clinical trials are lacking. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to assess the satisfaction of edentulous patients and their oral health impact profile when provided with 3 types of denture adhesives. METHODS: Sixty-four completely edentulous patients seeking complete dentures for their first time were randomly divided into 3 groups. Each group received a set of complete dentures, which were adjusted at review appointments until participants reported no complaints. After 1 month of using the dentures, participants rated their overall satisfaction and their satisfaction regarding comfort, retention, stability, and efficiency of mastication and speech on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Participants also filled out the oral health impact profile for edentulous patients (OHIP-EDENT) questionnaire. Each group was then given 1 type of denture adhesive to use. Group C received Corega Ultra denture fixative cream (GlaxoSmithKline), Group O received Olivafix (Bonyf), and Group S received Sea. Bond adhesive strips (Sea.Bond). Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze the differences in VAS scores before and after using the adhesive within each group and Wilcoxon-signed rank test was used to compare OHIP scores and total OHIP values before and after using the adhesive within each group (p = 0.05). Furthermore, Kruskal Wallis test was used to compare the differences before and after using the adhesives in VAS and OHIP values between the 3 groups. RESULTS: Significantly higher VAS values were detected in all groups and significantly lower values for many OHIP items in addition to total OHIP values were detected in all groups after using the adhesives (P < 0.05), except for the ease of cleaning for Group O and Group S (P > 0.05). No significant differences were found in VAS and OHIP values between the 3 groups (P > 0.05), except for the ease of cleaning which was significantly different between Group C and Group S (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Using denture adhesives for completely edentulous patients resulted in higher patient satisfaction as indicated by higher VAS scores as well as improved quality of life as indicated by lower OHIP-EDENT scores after using the adhesives. These improvements were not dependent on the type of adhesive, except for ease of cleaning as adhesive strips were easier to clean than paste type adhesives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT05496283) on 11/08/2022.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: The aim of the present study is to evaluate the most common reasons for replacing posterior amalgam and resin composite restorations in patients attending the university dental restorative clinics. Methods: A total of 318 restorations which needed to be replaced were clinically and radiographically evaluated in a period of nine months. The frequencies of reasons for replacing posterior amalgam and resin composite restorations were calculated; secondary caries, restoration/tooth fracture, marginal discoloration/ditching, proximal overhang/open margin, loss of anatomy, pain/sensitivity, and esthetics. Results: The sample population comprised of 191 females and 106 males. The majority of the sample population fell in the age group of 40-50 years (n = 110). 318 restorations (n = 318) were examined in this study. 82% of examined teeth were restored with amalgam (n = 261), while posterior composite restorations comprised 18% of the examined teeth (n = 57). Among all restorations demanded to be replaced by the patients (n = 318), aesthetic need was the most common reason (n = 98), followed by Ditching or discoloration (n = 64), secondary caries (n = 57), and fracture (n = 44). Loss of anatomy was the least common cause to replace both amalgam and resin composite restorations (n = 5). The different reasons of failure were all significant between amalgam and resin composite restorations as shown in (Fig. 1) (p < 0.005). The most common reason for amalgam replacement was aesthetic. The most common reason for composite replacement was secondary caries and marginal ditching. Conclusion: Both amalgam and composite had different reasons for replacement. Amalgam had lesser risk of developing secondary caries and higher longevity than composite.

RESUMEN

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: A simplified approach to complete denture treatment, omitting the border molding and definitive impression appointment, was suggested as an alternative to the conventional approach. However, comparison clinical trials are lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this randomized crossover clinical trial was to assess the satisfaction of edentulous patients and their oral health impact profile when provided with complete dentures fabricated through the simplified or the conventional approach. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty completely edentulous patients seeking complete dentures were randomly divided into 2 groups (n=20). Each group received 2 sets of dentures. The first group received conventionally fabricated complete dentures, and the second group received complete dentures fabricated through the simplified approach. After 2 months, participants rated their overall satisfaction and their satisfaction regarding comfort, retention, stability, and efficiency of mastication and speech on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Participants also filled out the oral health impact profile for edentulous patients (OHIP-EDENT) questionnaire. Each group was then given the alternate set of dentures and reviewed again after 2 months. The results were analyzed by using the Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon-signed rank tests (α=.05). RESULTS: The simplified complete dentures had significantly higher VAS scores for general satisfaction with maxillary dentures (P=.036), satisfaction with retention of maxillary dentures (P=.002), satisfaction with stability of maxillary dentures (P=.003), and satisfaction with speaking (P=.002). No statistically significant differences were found between the 2 groups regarding the other VAS items or OHIP-EDENT scores (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: The simplified denture fabrication approach required fewer appointments and resulted in higher patient satisfaction and similar OHIP-EDENT scores compared with the conventional approach. The simplified approach can be recommended over the conventional approach.

RESUMEN

This study investigated the fracture resistance of composite resins using a three-point bending test and acoustic emission (AE) analysis. Three groups of specimens (n=15) were prepared: non-reinforced BelleGlass HP composite (NRC), unidirectional (UFRC) and multidirectional (MFRC) fiber-reinforced groups which respectively incorporated unidirectional Stick and multidirectional StickNet fibers. Specimens were loaded to failure in a universal testing machine while an AE system was used to detect audible signals. Initial fracture strengths and AE amplitudes were significantly lower than those at final fracture in all groups (p<0.05). Initial fracture strength of UFRC (170.0 MPa) was significantly higher than MFRC (124.6 MPa) and NRC (87.9 MPa). Final fracture strength of UFRC (198.1 MPa) was also significantly higher than MFRC (151.0 MPa) and NRC (109.2 MPa). Initial and final fracture strengths were significantly correlated (r=0.971). It was concluded that fiber reinforcement improved the fracture resistance of composite resin materials and the monitoring of acoustic signals revealed significant information regarding the fracture process.

Asunto(s)