Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions| Reviewers

  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 2465    
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 41-49

Comparison between integrated and parallel interlock designs of an extra-coronal attachment-retained distal extension removable partial dentures: A clinical trial

1 Department of Oral Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Beirut Arab University, Beirut, Lebanon
2 Department of Removable Prosthodontics, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
3 Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Sinai University, Kantara Campus, Egypt
4 Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Christelle Joukhadar
Department of Oral Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Beirut Arab University, Beirut.
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_337_20

Rights and Permissions

Objective: Precision attachments may exert unfavorable stresses on abutments in distal extension bases. This study compared between two reciprocation designs in attachment removable partial dentures (RPDs). Materials and Methods: Fourteen patients were allocated into two groups. Each patient received an attachment-retained RPD with one of the two types of attachments being studied. Group I received the integrated interlock type of reciprocation and group II received the parallel interlock type. Abutments were examined for modified plaque index, modified bleeding index, periodontal probing pocket depth, clinical attachment level, and modified papillary bleeding Index. Results: Comparisons of periodontal parameters between mesial and distal abutments within each group revealed no statistically significant difference. Means of these parameters were used for the comparisons. There was a significant difference at P < 0.05 in all parameters between the two groups at time of insertion and at 3, 6, and 9 months of follow-up with values of group (II) higher than group (I). Conclusion: RPDs of both designs showed an increase in periodontal parameters. Integrated interlock design showed better scores. It is preferable to use the attachment-retained RPD with integrated interlock instead of parallel interlock design.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded93    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal