Overdenture attachment selection and the loading of implant and denture-bearing area. Part 2: A methodical study using five types of attachment.

In general, an implant is loaded via axial and horizontal forces. Besides this, moment loading can also occur. The aim of this study was to investigate how different prosthetic connectors with overdentures develop force transfer to implant and bone as well as to the denture-bearing alveolar ridge. Five connectors were investigated on a stereolithographic model fabricated according to a real patient situation. The model was fitted with strain gauges on the "bone" distal and medial to the implants and with vertical force transducers in the alveolar "bone" under the denture-bearing area. The parallel-sided rigid telescopic connector developed the highest moment loading of the implant (P<0.001), which would suggest restraint in the use of this connector. The bar construction also showed somewhat high moments but these may have been at least partly exaggerated by the individual patient situation. Loading results through the non-rigid telescopic copings, single spherical attachments and magnet overdentures demonstrated a low level of implant moment loading which would in part result from horizontal forces caused by denture forward shift during force application. The denture-bearing area loading was different with all attachments (P<0.001) and was related to the rigidity of the connector and reached the highest values with the non-rigid telescopic coping. The clinical implications of the various findings are discussed.

[1]  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.

[2]  D. van Steenberghe,et al.  A 5-year randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants in the mandibular overdenture therapy. Part I: Peri-implant outcome. , 1998, Clinical oral implants research.

[3]  M. Richards,et al.  Photoelastic stress patterns produced by implant-retained overdentures. , 1998, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[4]  Davis Dm,et al.  Mandibular overdentures stabilized by Astra Tech implants with either ball attachments or magnets: 5-year results. , 1999 .

[5]  M. Quirynen,et al.  The reliability of implant-retained hinging overdentures for the fully edentulous mandible An up to 9-year longitudinal study , 1997, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[6]  T Hara,et al.  Effect of continuous pressure on histopathological changes in denture-supporting tissues. , 1997, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[7]  M. W. Marshall,et al.  Using restorations borne totally by anterior implants to preserve the edentulous mandible. , 1999, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[8]  K. Gotfredsen,et al.  Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or bar attachments: a randomized prospective 5-year study. , 2000, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[9]  T Jemt,et al.  A prospective 15-year follow-up study of mandibular fixed prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants. Clinical results and marginal bone loss. , 1996, Clinical oral implants research.

[10]  I. R. Harris,et al.  Investigations into the failure of dental magnets. , 1999, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[11]  T Hara,et al.  Threshold for Bone Resorption Induced by Continuous and Intermittent Pressure in the Rat Hard Palate , 1998, Journal of dental research.

[12]  D. Steenberghe,et al.  A 5-year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction. , 1999, Journal of oral rehabilitation.