Search

Background: New materials for overdenture base construction were evolved. Thus, more clinical trials are needed to validate these materials. Objective: This study aimed to compare the difference between CAD/CAM‐milled poly methyl methacrylate (PMMA), poly ether ether ketone (PEEK) and conventional mandibular implant‐assisted overdentures regarding patient satisfaction and oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQL). Methods: This randomised, crossover, clinical study included 18 completely edentulous subjects rehabilitated with three mandibular implant‐assisted overdentures with three different denture base materials opposing a maxillary single denture. These materials were as follows: CAD/CAM‐milled PMMA, CAD/CAM‐milled PEEK and conventional PMMA. Every participant first received each mandibular overdenture in a random manner. After 6 months of each overdenture use, patient satisfaction and oral health‐related quality of life were assessed using visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP‐EDENT‐19), respectively, and then crossover to other groups was done. The same was repeated to the last group. Comparison of VAS and OHIP‐EDENT‐19 between groups was done using Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Bonferroni test. Results: Regarding all the VAS items, there were statistically significant higher scores for CAD/CAM‐milled PMMA and PEEK than conventional PMMA base except for speech, aesthetic and smell. Regarding OHIP‐EDENT‐19, many items revealed statistically lower problem scores for CAD/CAM‐milled PMMA, and CAD/CAM‐milled PEEK than conventional PMMA base except psychological discomfort, psychological disability and social disability. Conclusion: Within the limit of this study, CAD/CAM‐milled PMMA and CAD/CAM‐milled PEEK were recommended as implant‐assisted overdenture bases as it revealed higher patient satisfaction and better oral health‐related quality of life in comparison with conventional PMMA implant‐assisted overdenture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Stabilisation splint therapy (SST) and low‐level laser therapy (LLLT) are effective‐invasive treatment for temporo‐mandibular disorder (TMD) patients. However, the specific efficacy of each therapy in patients with chronic closed lock (CCL) from temporo‐mandibular joints (TMJ) disc displacement without reduction (DDwoR) remains unknown. Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess and compare the efficacy of SST and LLLT alone or in combination in patients with CCL from TMJ DDwoR. Methods: This parallel randomised clinical trial included 42 patients who were diagnosed with CCL from TMJ DDwoR. Patients were allocated equally and randomly into three treatment groups: group I received combined SST and LLLT, group II received LLLT and group III received SST. Maximum mouth opening (MMO), visual analogue scale (VAS), muscle and joint palpation scores and time required to achieve normal state were evaluated at baseline, 1, 2, 4 weeks, 3 and 6 months after the intervention. Data were collected and analysed using SPSS software. Results: Regarding MMO and VAS, a statistically significant improvement was found between group I versus group II and versus group III at all evaluation times. Regarding muscle and joint palpation scores, a statistically significant difference was found between group I versus group III, while non‐significant difference was found between group I and group II. A statistically significant faster improvement was found in group I versus group III and versus group II. Conclusion: All treatment modalities can be effective in management of CCL from a TMJ DDwoR cases, but the combined SST and LLLT group seems to provide the best and quickest improvement. Clinical trial registration number: NCT05548894. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]