Evaluation of Stress Patterns Produced by Implant-Retained Overdentures and Implant-Retained Fixed Partial Denture

AbstractThe purposes of this study were to photoelastically measure the biomechanical behavior of 4 implants retaining different cantilevered bar mandibular overdenture designs and to compare a fixed partial denture (FPD). A photoelastic model of a human edentulous mandible was fabricated, which contained 4 screw-type implants (3.75 × 10 mm) embedded in the parasymphyseal area. An FPD and 3 overdenture designs with the following attachments were evaluated: 3 plastic Hader clips, 1 Hader clip with 2 posterior resilient cap attachments, and 3 ball/O-ring attachments. Vertical occlusal forces of 100 N were applied between the central incisor and unilaterally to the right and left second premolars and second molars. Stresses that developed in the supporting structure were monitored photoelastically and recorded photographically. The results showed that the anterior loading, the overdenture with 3 plastic Hader clips, displayed the largest stress concentration at the medium implant. With premolar loading, the FPD and overdenture with 3 plastic Hader clips displayed the highest stresses to the ipsilateral terminal implant. With molar loading, the overdenture with 3 ball/O-ring attachments displayed the most uniform stress distribution in the posterior edentulous ridge, with less overloading in the terminal implant. It was concluded that vertical forces applied to the bar-clip overdenture and FPD created immediate stress patterns of greater magnitude and concentration on the ipsilateral implants, whereas the ball/O-ring attachments transferred minimal stress to the implants. The increased cantilever in the FPD caused the highest stresses to the terminal implant.

[1]  M. Mesquita,et al.  The service life of implant-retained overdenture attachment systems. , 2009, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[2]  E. Rocha,et al.  Comparison of stress distribution between complete denture and implant-retained overdenture-2D FEA. , 2008, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[3]  Bulent Uludag,et al.  Photoelastic stress analysis of various retention mechanisms on 3-implant-retained mandibular overdentures. , 2007, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[4]  Miguel Nobre,et al.  "All-on-Four" immediate-function concept with Brånemark System implants for completely edentulous mandibles: a retrospective clinical study. , 2003, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[5]  J. Brunski,et al.  Comparison of load distribution for implant overdenture attachments. , 2002, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[6]  S. Sadowsky Mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a literature review. , 2001, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[7]  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.

[8]  A. Caputo,et al.  Effect of anchorage systems and extension base contact on load transfer with mandibular implant-retained overdentures. , 2000, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[9]  A A Caputo,et al.  Photoelastic stress analysis of load transfer to implants and natural teeth comparing rigid and semirigid connectors. , 1999, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

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

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

[12]  A A Caputo,et al.  Effects of overdenture retention designs and implant orientations on load transfer characteristics. , 1996, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[13]  C. Johnston,et al.  Prosthetic management of the atrophic mandible using endosseous implants and overdentures: a six year review , 1995, British Dental Journal.

[14]  A. Caputo,et al.  Effect of cantilever length on stress transfer by implant-supported prostheses , 1995 .

[15]  R. M. Watson,et al.  The effects of prefabricated bar design on the success of overdentures stabilized by implants. , 1995, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[16]  A A Caputo,et al.  Effect of cantilever length on stress transfer by implant-supported prostheses. , 1994, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[17]  S. Aquilino,et al.  Cantilever and implant biomechanics: a review of the literature. Part 1. , 1994, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[18]  P J Becker,et al.  Survival of fixed implant-supported prostheses related to cantilever lengths. , 1994, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[19]  T. Southard,et al.  Evaluation of strain at the terminal abutment site of a fixed mandibular implant prosthesis during cantilever loading. , 1993, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[20]  A. Gilat,et al.  A photoelastic and strain gauge analysis of angled abutments for an implant system. , 1993, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[21]  W. Mccall,et al.  Follow-up study of silent periods in complete denture wearers. , 1987, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[22]  M. Artola Sada [Bar attachments in restorative dentistry]. , 1987, Practica odontologica.

[23]  Jon P Standlee,et al.  Biomechanics in Clinical Dentistry , 1987 .