PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Denture Precision Attachment”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 307 records · Page 17Linked to original sources
PubMed1978

Attachment fixation of the overdenture: part II.

Many attachment systems of the bar or stud type increase the stability of an overdenture. When selecting an attachment it is essential to consider the skill of the dentist-laboratory team as well as the dexterity of the patient and to use the easiest system that will still improve stabilization. Generally simplicity in design, ease of maintenance, and minimum leverage should be paramount considerations in selection. Use of a guide such as the EM Gauge and of the EM Attachment Selector significantly reduces the confusion in selecting attachments and increases the working armamentarium for stabilizing an overdenture.

Denture Design↗
PubMed2004

[Measurements of the flux densities of static magnetic fields generated by two types of dental magnetic attachments and their retentive forces].

OBJECTIVE: To measure and analyze the flux densities of static magnetic fields generated by two types of commonly used dental magnetic attachments and their retentive forces, and to provide guidance for the clinical application of magnetic attachments. METHODS: A digital Gaussmeter was used to measure the flux densities of static magnetic fields generated by two types of magnetic attachments, under four circumstances: open-field circuit; closed-field circuit; keeper and magnet slid laterally for a certain distance; and existence of air gap between keeper and magnet. The retentive forces of the magnetic attachments in standard closed-field circuit, with the keeper and magnet sliding laterally for a certain distance or with a certain air gap between keeper and magnet were measured by a tensile testing machine. RESULTS: There were flux leakages under both the open-field circuit and closed-field circuit of the two types of magnetic attachments. The flux densities on the surfaces of MAGNEDISC 800 (MD800) and MAGFIT EX600W (EX600) magnetic attachments under open-field circuit were 275.0 mT and 147.0 mT respectively. The flux leakages under closed-field circuit were smaller than those under open-field circuit. The respective flux densities on the surfaces of MD800 and EX600 magnetic attachments decreased to 11.4 mT and 4.5 mT under closed-field circuit. The flux density around the magnetic attachment decreased as the distance from the surface of the attachment increased. When keeper and magnet slid laterally for a certain distance or when air gap existed between keeper and magnet, the flux leakage increased in comparison with that under closed-field circuit. Under the standard closed-field circuit, the two types of magnetic attachments achieved the largest retentive forces. The retentive forces of MD800 and EX600 magnetic attachments under the standard closed-field circuit were 6.20 N and 4.80 N respectively. The retentive forces decreased with the sliding distance or with the increase of air gap between keeper and magnet. CONCLUSION: The magnetic attachments have flux leakages. When they are used in patients' oral cavities, if keeper and magnet are not attached accurately, the flux leakage will increase, and at the same time the retentive force will decrease. Therefore the keeper and magnet should be attached accurately in clinical application.

Denture Precision Attachment↗