Background. Many patients suffer from lack of retention of conventional mandibular overdentures due to loss of clip retention over time. Computer‐aided design‐computer‐aided manufacturing (CAD‐CAM) milled polyether ether ketone (PEEK) materials may be used for the construction of retentive housing and clips for improving retention of implant‐supported overdentures. Objective. To compare retention and patient satisfaction of implant‐supported mandibular overdentures retained by conventional nylon clip and metal housings for ball attachments versus PEEK clip and housings. Methods. Twenty‐two participants were divided into 2 equal groups (n = 11). The conventional group received implant‐supported mandibular overdentures retained by metal housings and nylon retentive elements, while the PEEK group received implant‐supported mandibular overdentures retained by PEEK retentive elements and housings. The PEEK retentive elements were made using computer‐aided design and computer‐aided manufacturing (CAD‐CAM). The evaluation included measuring the retention by applying a gradual pulling up force by force meter and patient satisfaction with a 7‐point visual analog scale (VAS) at overdenture insertion and 3, 6, and 12 months subsequently by a research interviewer. Results. The PEEK group showed statistically significantly increased retention force (P < 0.05) at the time of insertion (37.6/17.79) and after 3 months (33.9/16.78), 6 months (32.7/15.97), and 12 months (31.65/13.05). The conventional group had a statistically significantly higher mean overall satisfaction (P < 0.05) at the time of insertion (65/82.18). No statistically significant difference was found after 3 months (87.81/84.72). The PEEK group showed statistically significantly higher mean overall satisfaction (P < 0.05) after 6 months (86.36/80.18) and 12 months (85.45/79.54). Conclusions. According to the results of this study, the PEEK retentive material provided more retention than did the conventional material and led to improved patient satisfaction. The study was registered at clinical trials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05079048).

Objective The aim of the study is patients’ satisfaction evaluation and radiographic evaluation of the terminal abutments of attachment-retained maxillary obturators with metal framework versus milled polyetheretherketone (PEEK) framework in the management of maxillectomy cases. Materials and Methods Eighteen participants were randomly divided into three parallel groups (n = 6). Participants of the PEEK group received attachment-retained obturators with milled PEEK framework, the metal group received an attachment-retained obturator with a metallic framework, and the conventional group received conventional clasp-retained obturators with a metallic framework (Control group). The evaluation included was radiographic evaluation and patients’ satisfaction in this study included two scales—”The Obturator Functioning Scale” and “The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck 35” using one-way ANOVA test. Results Both PEEK and metal groups showed a statistically significant lower mean bone loss (p <0.050) compared with the conventional group during all follow-up periods. There is no statistically significant difference between the PEEK and metal groups during all follow-up periods. Regarding patient satisfaction, both the PEEK and metal groups showed a statistically significant decrease score (p <0.050) compared with the conventional group in various aspects of patients’ satisfaction scales as satisfaction with the look and difficulty of talking to the public, and noticeable clasps. In comparison, the PEEK group showed a statistically significant decrease score (p <0.050) than the metal group with respect to satisfaction with the look along all follow-up periods. Conclusions PEEK attachment-retained maxillary definitive obturators could be considered a promising treatment modality for patients with acquired maxillary defects with regard to esthetics and satisfaction. Publication Date: 23 November 2021 (online) © 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd. A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

Objective: the study aimed to ascertain the pattern and the prevalence of partial edentulism among Egyptian patients. Materials and Methods: An observational cross-sectional study was conducted by screening patients attending out-patients clinics of three prosthodontics departments of dental faculties in Egypt. The prevalence of partial edentulism among all patients was recorded. Patients were grouped into four groups according to the age into Group I: 21–30 years, Group II: 31–40 years, Group III: 41–50 and Group IV: over 50 years. The pattern of partly edentulous arches was identified using Kennedy's classification. To eliminate the complexity, the assessment did not consider the modification areas. Data was analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0: IBM Corp. Results: Kennedy Class I partial edentulism was 30.92%,(17.83 ,13.09) in the mandible and the maxilla, followed by class III that was 30.73%,(17.73 ,13.00) in the mandible and the maxilla, followed by class II that was 27.11%,(15.60 ,11.51)in the mandible and the maxilla,and finally class IV was 11.23%,(6.04 ,5.20)in the mandible and the maxilla and Kennedy’s Class III was the most common partially edentulous pattern (11.05 %,9.56%) between ages (20-30 and 31-40) years , Kennedy’s Class I,II was the most common partially edentulous pattern (12.81 %,7.99 %) (11.33%,9.10%,) between ages (41-50)(over50) years. Conclusions: With increasing age, there is a rise in Classes I , II ,IV Kennedy classification and a drop in Classes III. Class III was more prevalent in the younger population, but Class I was more prevalent in elder patients.

Objective This article evaluates the success of prosthetic rehabilitation of thin wiry ridge and implants placed simultaneously in splitted ridge both clinically and radiographically. Materials and Methods Twenty-one participants were enrolled of which 13 patients (8 females and 5 males) were suffering from maxillary ridge atrophy and 8 patients (5 females and 3 males) had mandibular ridge atrophy; a total of 42 implants were performed using the ridge expansion technique. The expansion was performed using the conventional disk technique, piezoelectric corticotomy, and self-threading expanders. Implants were placed and loaded with fixed partial denture after 4 months for the mandible and 6 months for the maxilla. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured at T0 (implant placement) and TL (loading). Crestal bone levels were measured at different times: T0, TL, and T12 (12 months). Evaluation of prosthetic and surgical complications was carried out. Data were analyzed and compared using analysis of variance and paired t-tests at a significance level of 5%. Results All implants met the criteria for success. All implants showed a higher mean bone loss from T0 to TL (1.259 ± 0.3020) than from TL to T12 (0.505 ± 0.163) with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.0001). ISQ values sharply increased at the time of loading (72.52 ± 2.734) than at implant insertion (44.5 ± 4.062) with a significant difference (p < 0.0001). Minor prosthetic and surgical complications were reported. Conclusion The results from this study support the efficacy of prosthetic rehabilitation of thin wiry ridge using split ridge technique and the success of implants placed simultaneously in splitted ridge. Article published online: 04 December 2021 © 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd. A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

Objective: To evaluate patients’ satisfaction, biting force measurement, and radiographic evaluation of abutment teeth of tooth implant-supported fixed partial denture, unilateral attachment, and conventional partial denture in mandibular distal extension cases. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four participants were selected according to the following criteria: participants with unilateral mandibular distal extension with last standing second premolar abutment; participants having abutments with sufficient occluso-gingival height and good periodontal condition. Participants were divided into the following three equal groups: participants of the implant group received fixed tooth implant-supported fixed partial dentures, attachment group participants received unilateral attachment removable partial dentures, and conventional group participants received conventional removable partial dentures. The evaluation included patient satisfaction using “OHIP14” questionnaires, biting force measurement, and radiographic evaluation of terminal abutments using the ANOVA test. Results: Participants of the implant group were mainly satisfied with their prosthesis than the attachment group, which is higher than the conventional. Regarding biting force measurement, there is a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between all groups, including the implant group and attachment group, as well as between attachment and conventional group (p < 0.05). The conventional group showed statistically significant (p < 0.05) highest mean bone loss, while there was no statistically significant difference between implant and attachment groups; both showed statistically significantly lower mean amounts of bone loss. Conclusion: The tooth implant-supported fixed prosthesis could be considered a superior line of treatment for managing distal extension cases. Unilateral attachment, which is considered an excellent alternative in the case of implant placement, is not recommended.