ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT This study aimed to report treatment of a patient with Kennedy's class l maxillary and class II mandibular arch with removable partial dentures supported on an external hexagon (HE) anterior type implant of regular diameter fitted with an O'ring type of attachment. This clinical case reports the oral rehabilitation of a senile patient whose clinical examination revealed missing dentition in the upper and lower arches, attrition of the lower anterior teeth, caries, and motor impairment affecting hygiene, mastication, and esthetic functions. Due to few severely impaired teeth, the pre-prosthetic preparation included extractions and restorations, followed by the fabrication of upper and lower removable partial dentures supported by an HE-type implant. This study is important because it addresses the current challenges faced in the implementation of treatment involving removable partial dentures combined with implants, which is a topic that still needs long-term follow-up and research.
RESUMO Este trabalho tem por objetivo relatar o tratamento reabilitador com próteses removíveis classe l de Kennedy superior e classe ll de Kennedy inferior associada a um implante de diâmetro regular, do tipo hexágono externo (HE) superior anterior, com o sistema de encaixe do tipo O'ring. O presente trabalho, relata um caso clínico em reabilitação oral em um paciente senil no qual apresentava ao exame clínico ausências dentárias no arco superior e inferior, desgaste por atrição nos dentes anteriores inferiores, cáries e comprometimento motor, prejudicando a higienização, função mastigatória e estética. Em virtude do grau de comprometimento de alguns dentes, o preparo pré-protético foi realizado com exodontias, restaurações e, por fim, a confecção de próteses parciais removíveis inferior e superior conjugada com um implante do tipo HE. O presente estudo é importante porque aborda os desafios atuais da implantação da prótese parcial removível combinada com o implante, um tema que ainda necessita de pesquisas de acompanhamento a longo prazo.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: To evaluate the impact of rehabilitation with implant-supported prostheses on the quality of life (QoL) of patients. Methods: The OHIP-14 questionnaire was applied to 114 patients and information regarding gender, age, type of prosthesis and time of use were obtained. To analyze whether there were any statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the seven parameters of the OHIP-14, the Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis test were used. All data were evaluated using a significance level of 5%. Results: Patients were predominantly female (78.9%) and single crowns users (41.2%). Patients reported a good QoL (3.07). Psychological discomfort and physical pain were the worst dimensions evaluated by the subjects. Results differed significantly (p<0.05) only for functional limitations and psychological discomfort in the different genders. Conclusions: Patients presented a high level of quality of life, regardless of age, duration of use and the type of prosthesis used. However, women presented more psychological distress and functional limitations than men (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Mouth Rehabilitation , Patient Satisfaction , Prostheses and Implants , Quality of LifeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to investigate peri-implant and intraconnection microflora of healthy implants restored with cemented and screwed superstructures. METHODS: Patients with two to three implants restored with cemented or screwed restorations and 5 years of follow-up were recruited. Samples were taken from peri-implant sulci, adjacent teeth, and the inner portion of connections. Prevalence of positive sites and bacterial loads for 10 microorganisms were obtained with quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. Implant connection permeability to the studied microorganisms was estimated using a standardized bacterial contamination index. Statistical analysis was performed using a generalized estimating equations model, Wald χ(2) test, and the least significant difference test. RESULTS: The final sample consisted of 18 patients (55 implants) in the cemented group and 22 patients (46 implants) in the screw-retained group. Regarding prevalence of positive sites, significant differences between groups were only found for Tannerella forsythia, which was 8.7 times more frequent at peri-implant sulci of cemented than screw-retained prostheses. Bacterial loads of Porphyromonas gingivalis, T. forsythia, Parvimonas micra, and total bacterial load were significantly higher at peri-implant sulci for the cemented group; at the inner portion of connections, values were significantly higher for P. micra and Fusobacterium nucleatum for the screw-retained group. Contamination index values demonstrated higher permeability to most microbes in the cemented group. CONCLUSIONS: Internal implant surfaces were microbiologically contaminated for both cemented and screw-retained superstructures. Differences were found between the two methods of prosthetic retention: the cemented group presented significantly higher bacterial loads in the peri-implant sulcus but significantly lower bacterial loads at the inner portion of the implant connection.
