08 to 1.48. The flexural deflection of the dentures without reinforcement (0.133 ± 0.014 mm), the dentures reinforced at the ridge lap (0.125 ± 0.014 mm), in the anterior (0.122 ± 0.009 mm), and in the middle (0.132 ± 0.015 mm) regions were not significantly different (p > 0.05), and the dentures reinforced in the anterior and posterior (0.117 ± 0.011 mm) regions had significantly lower deflection than the dentures without reinforcement (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The location of the metal reinforcement affected the fracture resistance of the maxillary acrylic resin complete dentures. "
“To assess removable denture patient awareness, expectations, and source of information
about dental implants (DIs). Three hundred patients [150 removable partial denture (RPD) wearers and Selleck APO866 150 complete denture wearers (CDWs)] attended the removable prosthodontic clinic at Faculty of Dentistry, Jordan University of Science and Technology. Patients were evaluated using a pilot-tested, 21-question questionnaire. Ninety-six percent of participants
were aware of DIs, with no difference between CDWs and RPD wearers (p > 0.05). The Selleckchem INK 128 participants’ friends and relatives were the main source of information (63.4%), followed by dentists (32.4%). Improvement in function was the predominant reason (55.7%) for patients to consider DIs. Fear of unknown side effects was the major factor in preventing patients from choosing DIs (11.7%), followed by high cost (9.7%) and surgical risk (8.7%). Approximately 89% had no information or were poorly informed about DIs. Over two-thirds of patients did not know about the care (78.3%) of DIs,
causes of DI failure (69.7%), or DI duration of service (80.7%). Only 24.7% knew that DIs would be anchored to the jawbone; however, 27.3% and 56.7% of CDWs and RPD wearers, respectively, preferred (p < 0.05) to have their teeth replaced with DIs. High costs were considered the major disadvantage of DIs in 45% of participants, followed by fear of surgery (27.3%), and long treatment times (24.7%). There was a high awareness about DIs among removable denture patients; however, this awareness MCE公司 was associated with a low level of accurate information. “
“Purpose: This study aimed to determine if the use of gabapentin is more efficacious than a stabilization splint with regard to the intensity of masseter muscle contractions and/or sleep quality for patients experiencing sleep bruxism (SB). Materials and Methods: Twenty patients with SB participated in this clinical study. They were randomly divided into two treatment groups: stabilization splint group (n = 10) and gabapentin group (n = 10). The first polysomnographic examination was performed before the beginning of the experiment for all the participants. At the end of a 2-month period of stabilization splint therapy or gabapentin usage, a second polysomnographic recording was made.