Biomechanical rationale for a single implant-retained mandibular overdenture: an in vitro study.

OBJECTIVES This study aimed to examine the biomechanical rationale of a single implant-retained overdenture (SIO) system using an in vitro model. MATERIAL AND METHODS Laboratory implant analogs (3.75 x 13 mm) were embedded into the midline and canine regions on both sides of the mandibular phantom model with artificial mucosa. Magnetic attachments (flat, FM; dome, DM) and a ball attachment (Ball) were mounted to the abutment where lateral forces were measured with four miniature strain gauges attached to the surface. A 50 N static load was applied at five different sites of the occlusal surface of the simulated denture base using each counterpart of the attachments. Strain data were compared between SIO and two implant-retained configurations (TIO) with three attachments. Three-dimensional (3D) denture base displacements were also measured. Statistical analysis was performed by multiple comparisons using a post hoc test (P<0.05). RESULTS Statistically significantly smaller lateral forces to abutments were obtained in SIO than in TIO with the Ball with the molar load, while there were no statistical differences between SIO and TIO with FM. There were no statistical differences in 3D denture base movements between SIO and TIO in the midline and molar regions, while there were larger movements in SIO than in TIO with FM. CONCLUSION Within the limitations of our in vitro study, we suggested that single-implant overdentures with dome-type magnet or ball attachments had biomechanical effects similar to two-implant overdentures in terms of lateral forces to the abutment and denture base movements under molar functional loads.

[1]  Y. Maeda,et al.  Efficacy of a posterior implant support for extra shortened dental arches: a biomechanical model analysis. , 2005, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[2]  J. Walton,et al.  A clinical trial of patient satisfaction and prosthodontic needs with ball and bar attachments for implant-retained complete overdentures: three-year results. , 2005 .

[3]  M. Quirynen,et al.  A 10-year randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining mandibular overdentures: peri-implant outcome. , 2005, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[4]  T Nokubi,et al.  Effect of magnetic attachment with stress breaker on lateral stress to abutment tooth under overdenture. , 2004, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[5]  L. Lindén,et al.  Simulating periodontal effects in dental osseointegrated implants: effect of an intramobile damping element on the fatigue strength of dental implants--an in vitro test method. , 2004, Quintessence international.

[6]  M. A. van 't Hof,et al.  Comparison of implant-retained mandibular overdentures and conventional complete dentures: a 10-year prospective study of clinical aspects and patient satisfaction. , 2003, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[7]  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.

[8]  M. Quirynen,et al.  Marginal bone loss around implants retaining hinging mandibular overdentures, at 4-, 8- and 12-years follow-up. , 2001, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[9]  I Naert,et al.  The influence of static and dynamic loading on marginal bone reactions around osseointegrated implants: an animal experimental study. , 2001, Clinical oral implants research.

[10]  C. Ulm,et al.  The symphyseal single-tooth implant for anchorage of a mandibular complete denture in geriatric patients: a clinical report. , 2001, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[11]  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.

[12]  S. H. Lee,et al.  Retention of prefabricated attachments for implant stabilized overdentures in the edentulous mandible: an in vitro study. , 1998, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[13]  S. Castagna,et al.  Mandibular overdentures anchored to single implants: a five-year prospective study. , 1997, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[14]  V. Petropoulos,et al.  Comparison of retention and release periods for implant overdenture attachments. , 1997, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[15]  B Rangert,et al.  Bending overload and implant fracture: a retrospective clinical analysis. , 1995, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[16]  A H Geering,et al.  Peri-implant mucosal aspects of ITI implants supporting overdentures. A five-year longitudinal study. , 1994, Clinical oral implants research.

[17]  M I MacEntee,et al.  Problems with prostheses on implants: a retrospective study. , 1994, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[18]  Y. Maeda,et al.  Lateral forces exerted on the abutment tooth of complete mandibular overdentures. , 1988, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[19]  G E Rooney,et al.  Alveolar bone loss in overdentures: a 5-year study. , 1978, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.