Comparison of Maintenance in Different Materials for Implant Dental Prostheses
Context: In contemporary prosthodontics, implant-supported dental prostheses are frequently utilized to restore function and esthetics for individuals who are edentulous. The prosthetic material selection has a big impact on long-term performance and maintenance needs. Methods: A retrospective revie...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2024-08-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_273_24 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850281848026955776 |
|---|---|
| author | Neelam Suman Niharika Munuganti Sareen Duseja Hina Naim Abdul Rahul Puthenkandathil Kishan K. Choithani Ashok Kumar Vilas Patel Sirisha Kommuri |
| author_facet | Neelam Suman Niharika Munuganti Sareen Duseja Hina Naim Abdul Rahul Puthenkandathil Kishan K. Choithani Ashok Kumar Vilas Patel Sirisha Kommuri |
| author_sort | Neelam Suman |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Context:
In contemporary prosthodontics, implant-supported dental prostheses are frequently utilized to restore function and esthetics for individuals who are edentulous. The prosthetic material selection has a big impact on long-term performance and maintenance needs.
Methods:
A retrospective review of patient files from the dental implant clinic of a tertiary care facility was done. Included were patients who had dental prosthesis supported by implants between January 2018 and December 2022. Data were gathered and examined on the prosthesis material, follow-up visits, and maintenance interventions (adjustments, repairs, and replacements).
Results:
Materials for 50 prostheses made of porcelain, 45 prostheses made of acrylic, 35 prostheses made of metal, and 40 prostheses made of composite were assessed. When it came to modifications and repairs, porcelain prosthesis needed less work than acrylic prostheses. Composite prostheses required the least amount of maintenance overall, whereas metal prostheses indicated a considerable demand for maintenance.
Conclusion:
Superior durability is provided by porcelain, frequent repairs are needed for acrylic, structural strength is provided by metal, and composite material gives promising esthetics with low maintenance requirements. These results highlight how crucial it is to take material properties into account when choosing a prosthesis to maximize long-term results and patient happiness. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-e5f28a46a7f349668d053920f8a02e7d |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 0976-4879 0975-7406 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-08-01 |
| publisher | Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences |
| spelling | doaj-art-e5f28a46a7f349668d053920f8a02e7d2025-08-20T01:48:10ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsJournal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences0976-48790975-74062024-08-0116Suppl 3S2549S255110.4103/jpbs.jpbs_273_24Comparison of Maintenance in Different Materials for Implant Dental ProsthesesNeelam SumanNiharika MunugantiSareen DusejaHina Naim AbdulRahul PuthenkandathilKishan K. ChoithaniAshok KumarVilas PatelSirisha KommuriContext: In contemporary prosthodontics, implant-supported dental prostheses are frequently utilized to restore function and esthetics for individuals who are edentulous. The prosthetic material selection has a big impact on long-term performance and maintenance needs. Methods: A retrospective review of patient files from the dental implant clinic of a tertiary care facility was done. Included were patients who had dental prosthesis supported by implants between January 2018 and December 2022. Data were gathered and examined on the prosthesis material, follow-up visits, and maintenance interventions (adjustments, repairs, and replacements). Results: Materials for 50 prostheses made of porcelain, 45 prostheses made of acrylic, 35 prostheses made of metal, and 40 prostheses made of composite were assessed. When it came to modifications and repairs, porcelain prosthesis needed less work than acrylic prostheses. Composite prostheses required the least amount of maintenance overall, whereas metal prostheses indicated a considerable demand for maintenance. Conclusion: Superior durability is provided by porcelain, frequent repairs are needed for acrylic, structural strength is provided by metal, and composite material gives promising esthetics with low maintenance requirements. These results highlight how crucial it is to take material properties into account when choosing a prosthesis to maximize long-term results and patient happiness.https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_273_24acryliccompositeimplant-supported dental prosthesismaintenancematerial selectionmetalporcelaintertiary care facility |
| spellingShingle | Neelam Suman Niharika Munuganti Sareen Duseja Hina Naim Abdul Rahul Puthenkandathil Kishan K. Choithani Ashok Kumar Vilas Patel Sirisha Kommuri Comparison of Maintenance in Different Materials for Implant Dental Prostheses Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences acrylic composite implant-supported dental prosthesis maintenance material selection metal porcelain tertiary care facility |
| title | Comparison of Maintenance in Different Materials for Implant Dental Prostheses |
| title_full | Comparison of Maintenance in Different Materials for Implant Dental Prostheses |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Maintenance in Different Materials for Implant Dental Prostheses |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Maintenance in Different Materials for Implant Dental Prostheses |
| title_short | Comparison of Maintenance in Different Materials for Implant Dental Prostheses |
| title_sort | comparison of maintenance in different materials for implant dental prostheses |
| topic | acrylic composite implant-supported dental prosthesis maintenance material selection metal porcelain tertiary care facility |
| url | https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_273_24 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT neelamsuman comparisonofmaintenanceindifferentmaterialsforimplantdentalprostheses AT niharikamunuganti comparisonofmaintenanceindifferentmaterialsforimplantdentalprostheses AT sareenduseja comparisonofmaintenanceindifferentmaterialsforimplantdentalprostheses AT hinanaimabdul comparisonofmaintenanceindifferentmaterialsforimplantdentalprostheses AT rahulputhenkandathil comparisonofmaintenanceindifferentmaterialsforimplantdentalprostheses AT kishankchoithani comparisonofmaintenanceindifferentmaterialsforimplantdentalprostheses AT ashokkumar comparisonofmaintenanceindifferentmaterialsforimplantdentalprostheses AT vilaspatel comparisonofmaintenanceindifferentmaterialsforimplantdentalprostheses AT sirishakommuri comparisonofmaintenanceindifferentmaterialsforimplantdentalprostheses |