FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2067429685> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2067429685 endingPage "346" @default.
• W2067429685 startingPage "338" @default.
• W2067429685 abstract "Statement of problem Resilient (nonrigid) and non-resilient (rigid) attachments are used in extension base partial removable dental prostheses for retention. However, the biomechanical effects of these 2 types of retainers on the terminal abutment and supporting tissues, which may influence clinical treatment planning, have not been compared. Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the mechanical effects of 2 types of extracoronal attachments (rigid and nonrigid) in distal extension removable partial prostheses on the alveolar ridge and abutment tooth periodontal ligament. Material and methods A finite element model of a human left mandible edentulous arch distal to the second premolar was fabricated. The second premolar was the terminal abutment for an attachment-retained denture. Two types of attachments (rigid and nonrigid) were modeled in the study. For the nonrigid attachment, there was movement between the patrix and matrix component of the attachment, but there was no movement between the 2 component parts for the rigid attachment. Six levels of loading (100, 150, 200, 250, 300, and 350 N) were applied from 3 directions (axial, buccolingual, and mesiodistal) on the central fossa of the first and second molars. Denture motion and stress distributions of denture supporting tissues were observed. Maximum equivalent stress values (SEQV) were recorded for 6 regions (cervical bone, cervical and apical periodontal ligaments, mesial and distal ridges, and mucosa). The data were divided into 2 groups according to the attachment type. Paired t tests were used to compare the values of the 2 groups. Factorial ANOVA was used to test the difference between the loading directions (α=.05). Multiple linear regression was used to analyze the interactions among the factors of region, direction, and level (α=.05). Results Stress distributions in the rigid and nonrigid attachment models were similar but the magnitudes were different. For all 3 loading directions, significantly different stresses in the alveolar ridge and periodontal tissue of the terminal abutment were found between the rigid and nonrigid groups (P<.05). There were significant differences among the 3 loading directions (P<.05). In the nonrigid group, the stress ratio of the mesial to the distal area was higher than that of the rigid group from axial and mesiodistal loading (P<.05). Linear interactions were found between the direction and level and region and level combinations (P<.05). Movement between the patrix and matrix components increased as loading increased. The most obvious movement of attachment occurred when loading was in the buccolingual direction. Conclusions Stress on the terminal abutment can be reduced by the use of an extracoronal resilient attachment that allocates more loads onto the distal edentulous ridge. The level of loading influenced the extent of reduction. A resilient attachment with a universal hinge had the most movement when loading was in the buccolingual direction. Interactions were found between direction and level, as well as region and level combinations (P<.05). Resilient (nonrigid) and non-resilient (rigid) attachments are used in extension base partial removable dental prostheses for retention. However, the biomechanical effects of these 2 types of retainers on the terminal abutment and supporting tissues, which may influence clinical treatment planning, have not been compared. The purpose of this study was to compare the mechanical effects of 2 types of extracoronal attachments (rigid and nonrigid) in distal extension removable partial prostheses on the alveolar ridge and abutment tooth periodontal ligament. A finite element model of a human left mandible edentulous arch distal to the second premolar was fabricated. The second premolar was the terminal abutment for an attachment-retained denture. Two types of attachments (rigid and nonrigid) were modeled in the study. For the nonrigid attachment, there was movement between the patrix and matrix component of the attachment, but there was no movement between the 2 component parts for the rigid attachment. Six levels of loading (100, 150, 200, 250, 300, and 350 N) were applied from 3 directions (axial, buccolingual, and mesiodistal) on the central fossa of the first and second molars. Denture motion and stress distributions of denture supporting tissues were observed. Maximum equivalent stress values (SEQV) were recorded for 6 regions (cervical bone, cervical and apical periodontal ligaments, mesial and distal ridges, and mucosa). The data were divided into 2 groups according to the attachment type. Paired t tests were used to compare the values of the 2 groups. Factorial ANOVA was used to test the difference between the loading directions (α=.05). Multiple linear regression was used to analyze the interactions among the factors of region, direction, and level (α=.05). Stress distributions in the rigid and nonrigid attachment models were similar but the magnitudes were different. For all 3 loading directions, significantly different stresses in the alveolar ridge and periodontal tissue of the terminal abutment were found between the rigid and nonrigid groups (P<.05). There were significant differences among the 3 loading directions (P<.05). In the nonrigid group, the stress ratio of the mesial to the distal area was higher than that of the rigid group from axial and mesiodistal loading (P<.05). Linear interactions were found between the direction and level and region and level combinations (P<.05). Movement between the patrix and matrix components increased as loading increased. The most obvious movement of attachment occurred when loading was in the buccolingual direction. Stress on the terminal abutment can be reduced by the use of an extracoronal resilient attachment that allocates more loads onto the distal edentulous ridge. The level of loading influenced the extent of reduction. A resilient attachment with a universal hinge had the most movement when loading was in the buccolingual direction. Interactions were found between direction and level, as well as region and level combinations (P<.05)." @default.
• W2067429685 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2067429685 creator A5016410321 @default.
• W2067429685 creator A5030695223 @default.
• W2067429685 creator A5054009764 @default.
• W2067429685 creator A5059955076 @default.
• W2067429685 date "2011-05-01" @default.
• W2067429685 modified "2023-10-06" @default.
• W2067429685 title "Effects of rigid and nonrigid extracoronal attachments on supporting tissues in extension base partial removable dental prostheses: A nonlinear finite element study" @default.
• W2067429685 cites W1969318356 @default.
• W2067429685 cites W1978300594 @default.
• W2067429685 cites W1978343072 @default.
• W2067429685 cites W1979649602 @default.
• W2067429685 cites W1992053132 @default.
• W2067429685 cites W1994896066 @default.
• W2067429685 cites W2001620127 @default.
• W2067429685 cites W2014245085 @default.
• W2067429685 cites W2015411940 @default.
• W2067429685 cites W2016474763 @default.
• W2067429685 cites W2018359964 @default.
• W2067429685 cites W2034891377 @default.
• W2067429685 cites W2036889478 @default.
• W2067429685 cites W2040858687 @default.
• W2067429685 cites W2052969845 @default.
• W2067429685 cites W2061241798 @default.
• W2067429685 cites W2074487279 @default.
• W2067429685 cites W2076249841 @default.
• W2067429685 cites W2076866597 @default.
• W2067429685 cites W2077552470 @default.
• W2067429685 cites W2099955179 @default.
• W2067429685 cites W2117538096 @default.
• W2067429685 cites W2118148634 @default.
• W2067429685 cites W2130076292 @default.
• W2067429685 cites W2144739289 @default.
• W2067429685 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(11)60066-8" @default.
• W2067429685 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21530760" @default.
• W2067429685 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W2067429685 type Work @default.
• W2067429685 sameAs 2067429685 @default.
• W2067429685 citedByCount "22" @default.
• W2067429685 countsByYear W20674296852013 @default.
• W2067429685 countsByYear W20674296852014 @default.
• W2067429685 countsByYear W20674296852015 @default.
• W2067429685 countsByYear W20674296852017 @default.
• W2067429685 countsByYear W20674296852020 @default.
• W2067429685 countsByYear W20674296852021 @default.
• W2067429685 countsByYear W20674296852022 @default.
• W2067429685 countsByYear W20674296852023 @default.
• W2067429685 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2067429685 hasAuthorship W2067429685A5016410321 @default.
• W2067429685 hasAuthorship W2067429685A5030695223 @default.
• W2067429685 hasAuthorship W2067429685A5054009764 @default.
• W2067429685 hasAuthorship W2067429685A5059955076 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConcept C151279780 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConcept C172829275 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConcept C199343813 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConcept C202271784 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConcept C2778930028 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConcept C2780062004 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConcept C2780641865 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConcept C2781411149 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConcept C29694066 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConcept C41868710 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConcept C48777230 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConcept C66938386 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConceptScore W2067429685C127413603 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConceptScore W2067429685C141071460 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConceptScore W2067429685C151279780 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConceptScore W2067429685C172829275 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConceptScore W2067429685C199343813 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConceptScore W2067429685C202271784 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConceptScore W2067429685C2778930028 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConceptScore W2067429685C2780062004 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConceptScore W2067429685C2780641865 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConceptScore W2067429685C2781411149 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConceptScore W2067429685C29694066 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConceptScore W2067429685C41868710 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConceptScore W2067429685C48777230 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConceptScore W2067429685C66938386 @default.
• W2067429685 hasConceptScore W2067429685C71924100 @default.
• W2067429685 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2067429685 hasLocation W20674296851 @default.
• W2067429685 hasLocation W20674296852 @default.
• W2067429685 hasOpenAccess W2067429685 @default.
• W2067429685 hasPrimaryLocation W20674296851 @default.
• W2067429685 hasRelatedWork W2067429685 @default.
• W2067429685 hasRelatedWork W2077455859 @default.
• W2067429685 hasRelatedWork W2091563559 @default.
• W2067429685 hasRelatedWork W2316566285 @default.
• W2067429685 hasRelatedWork W2359868795 @default.
• W2067429685 hasRelatedWork W2361574483 @default.
• W2067429685 hasRelatedWork W2363975617 @default.
• W2067429685 hasRelatedWork W2364467767 @default.
• W2067429685 hasRelatedWork W2373662664 @default.
• W2067429685 hasRelatedWork W2378708604 @default.

• next