18Feb 2017

A COMPARATIVE IN VITRO STUDY ON RETENTION AND STABILITY OF FOUR IMPLANT-SUPPORTED OVERDENTURE BASED ON IMPLANT LOCATION

Crossref Cited-by Linking logo
  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • Cite This Article as
  • Corresponding Author

Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of implant location and different implant attachment systems on the retention and stability of 4 implant-supported overdentures by measuring retentive forces during vertical, oblique and horizontal types of dislodgment forces. Materials and Methods: The retention and stability of 4 implant supported overdenture at different implant locations in the arch with different attachment forms under multidirectional dislodging forces were evaluated. For that an experiment was undertaken utilizing a model simulating a maxillary edentulous ridge with 6 dental implants in positions on the model approximating the tooth positions in the natural dentition. A cobalt-chromium cast framework with 3 loops, acrylic resin inside the housing, and chains attached to a universal testing machine was used to measure peak load (N) required to disconnect an attachment. Kruskal wallis test followed by Mann Whitney U test were used for statistical analysis. Results: The test results have shown significant difference (p<0.05) when tested within implant location and implant attachments at different directions of pull.Kruskal wallis test was performed to find whether there is any significant difference of mean present among three attachments in each group and significant difference between three groups among each attachment system.Mann Whitney U test was done to find any significant difference present between two attachments of each group and difference between two groups among each attachment system. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this in vitro laboratory study, the following conclusions were made. Vertical retention increased as implant location was planned at canine and premolar location. Antero-posterior stability and horizontal stability of a simulated overdenture prosthesis increased with distal implant location up to canine and premolar location. Attachment type affects retention and stability differently by location.

  1. Academy of prosthodontics: glossary of prosthodontic terms. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:10-92 .
  2. Felton DA. Edentulism and comorbid factors.J Prosthodont. 2009; 18:88-96.
  3. Carlsson GE, Omar R. The future of complete dentures in oral rehabilitation. A critical review. J Oral Rehabil. 2010; 37:143-56.
  4. Lang BR. A review of traditional therapies in complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent.1994; 72:538-42.
  5. Jacobson TE, krol AJ. A contemporary review of the factors involved in complete denture retention, stability, and support. Part i: retention. J Prosthet Dent.1983; 49:5-15.
  6. Mericske-stern R, Probst D, Fahrl?nder F, Schellenberg M. Within-subject comparison of two rigid bar designs connecting two interforaminal implants: patients' satisfaction and prosthetic results. Clin implant dent relat res. 2009; 11:228-37.
  7. Carlsson GE, Otterland A, Wennstrom A. Patient factors in appreciation of complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1967;17:322- 328 .
  8. Gjengedal H, Berg E, Boe OE, Trovik TA. Self-reported oral health and denture satisfaction in partially and completely edentulous patients. Int J Prosthodont. 2011; 24:9-15.
  9. Assun?ao WG, Barao VA, Delben JA, Gomes EA, Tabata LF. A comparison of patient satisfaction between treatment with conventional complete dentures and overdentures in the elderly: a literature review. Gerodontology. 2010; 27:154-62.
  10. Critchlow SB, Ellis JS. Prognostic indicators for conventional complete denture therapy: a review of the literature. J Dent. 2010; 38:2-9.
  11. Zou et al. A 3-year prospective clinical study of telescopic crown, bar, and locator attachments for removable four implant?supported maxillary overdentures. Int J Prosthodont 2013; 26:566?573.
  12. Sadowsky SJ. Mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a literature review. J Prosthet ent. 2001; 86:468-73.
  13. Trakas T, Michalakis K, Kang K, Hirayama H. Attachment systems for implant retained overdentures: a literature review. Implant Dent. 2006;15:24-34
  14. Alsabeeha NH, Payne AG, Swain MV. Attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: a review of in vitro investigations on retention and wear features. Int J Prosthodont. 2009; 22:429-40.
  15. Brewer AA, Morrow RM. Examination, diagnosis, treatment planning, and prognosis. In overdentures (pp. 32-36) 1975. St. Louis: C.V. mosby co.
  16. Langer Y, Langer A. Root-retained overdentures: part i--biomechanical and clinical aspects. J prosthet dent. 1991; 66:784-9.
  17. Kaufmann R, Friedli M, Hug S, Mericske-stern R. Removable dentures with implant support in strategic positions followed for up to 8 years. Int J Prosthodont. 2009; 22:233-41.
  18. Zitzmann NU, Rohner U, Weiger R, Krastl G. When to choose which retention element to use for removable dental prostheses. Int J Prosthodont. 2009; 22:161-7.
  19. Mumcu E, Bilhan H, Geckili O. The effect of attachment type and implant number on satisfaction and quality of life of mandibular implant-retained overdenture wearers. Gerodontology. 2011;jul:4:1-6

[Y. Tejaswi, A. Kaleswara rao, T. Sunil chandra, V. Ravikiran, S. Hemchand, A. Premalatha, T. Durgaprasad and V. Sri Harsha. (2017); A COMPARATIVE IN VITRO STUDY ON RETENTION AND STABILITY OF FOUR IMPLANT-SUPPORTED OVERDENTURE BASED ON IMPLANT LOCATION Int. J. of Adv. Res. 5 (Feb). 282-290] (ISSN 2320-5407). www.journalijar.com

Dr.Y. Tejaswi
MDS( Prosthodontics)

DOI:

Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/3145      
DOI URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/3145

Download Full Paper

Download PDF No. of Downloads: 60 | No. of Views: 190