Critérios para seleção dos sistemas de retenção para overdentures implanto-retidas Retention system selection criteria for overdentures

Disconfort, lack of stability, low masticatory efficiency and speaking difficulty are some of the principal complaints of patients who use conventional complete dentures. Usually, these complaints are related to a high bone resorption that these patients can present, that limits the retention and the stability of their prosthesis when in function, creating disconfort. With the possibility of the use of osseointegration implants in the prosthetics planning, new alternatives of rehabilitation treatments were developed allowing the insertion of implants in a edentulate area. Among the treatments for edentulate patients, overdentures proportionate a significant increase of retention, stability and comfort in relation to conventional complete dentures. It is a type of treament with low cost and simplicity of confection in relation to fixed implant prosthesis that make it acessible to a higher number of patients. One of the most important aspects related to a successful result is the correct selection of the retention system for each clinical case. This paper has the objective to explain about the aspects that are involved in the selection of the most adequate system for each clinical case. Key words: Overdenture. Retention system. Implants.

[1]  M. Bakke,et al.  Masticatory function and patient satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures: a prospective 5-year study. , 2002, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[2]  G Preti,et al.  Mandibular implant-retained overdenture: finite element analysis of two anchorage systems. , 1998, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[3]  J. P. Lund,et al.  Comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-retained overdentures and conventional dentures among middle-aged edentulous patients: satisfaction and functional assessment. , 2003, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[4]  A M Ferman,et al.  Effects of attachment type on the mobility of implant-stabilized overdentures--an in vitro study. , 2000, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[5]  D M Davis,et al.  The maintenance requirements of mandibular overdentures stabilized by Astra Tech implants using three different attachment mechanisms--balls, magnets, and bars; 3-year results. , 2000, The European journal of prosthodontics and restorative dentistry.

[6]  C. Freeman,et al.  Long-term follow-up of implant-stabilised overdentures. , 2001, The European journal of prosthodontics and restorative dentistry.

[7]  Lily T. Garcia,et al.  Osseointegration and Occlusal Rehabilitation , 1989 .

[8]  Kiyoshi Koyano,et al.  In vitro study of a mandibular implant overdenture retained with ball, magnet, or bar attachments: comparison of load transfer and denture stability. , 2003, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[9]  C. Watson,et al.  Implant complications and failures: the complete overdenture. , 2001, Dental update.

[10]  A. Pedreira,et al.  Avaliação comparativa da perda de retenção de quatro sistemas de encaixes do tipo ERA e O-Ring empregados sob overdentures em função do tempo de uso , 2003 .

[11]  Ignace Naert,et al.  The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. , 2003, Quintessence international.

[12]  R. Mericske-Stern Force distribution on implants supporting overdentures: the effect of distal bar extensions. A 3-D in vivo study. , 1997, Clinical oral implants research.

[13]  A Damien Walmsley,et al.  Magnetic retention in prosthetic dentistry. , 2002, Dental update.