THE EFFECT OF IMPLANT LOCATIONS ON THE STRESS TRANSMITTED TO IMPLANT-TOOTH-ASSISTED PARTIAL OVERDENTURE (IN VITRO STUDY)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Bachelor of Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, October 6 University, Egypt.

2 Lecturer of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt.

3 Associate Professor of Dental Biomaterials, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt.

4 Professor of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt.

Abstract

Introduction: Posterior free end edentulous areas are more prevalent among population. Absence of posterior abutments to support and retain partial dentures affects the prognosis of prostheses. A problem of support, retention and stability is usually associated with distal extension removable partial dentures.
Objectives: To evaluate and compare the effect of implant locations on the retention of the prostheses of implant tooth assisted partial overdenture for mandibular Kennedy class II with implant located in first premolar area and second molar area. Second objective was to evaluate the wear of female parts of the attachments attached to these implants.
Materials and methods: The study was conducted on two parallel groups according to the different implant locations: Group (A) implant in first premolar area, Group (B) implant in second molar area. Two acrylic models with Kennedy class II were used in this study. Two implants with (2.3mm length and 3.6mm width), two positioner attachments were attached to implants and inserted in the previous locations for both groups. Each group had 9 sets of attachments with 3 different colored plastic matrices (27 matrices) with different retention force.  A metallic overdenture with acrylic resin base and teeth was constructed for each group. By using the universal testing machine, vertical load dislodgment forces were measured at anterior of the saddle of the denture and posterior of the saddle of the denture for both groups at the beginning of the study (initial retention) and after 50,000 cyclic with load of 20 K at first molar area, the retention test was repeated and the mean value was recorded. All retention parts were imaged under stereomicroscope to study wear and attrition of internal components. All data from both groups in this in-vitro study was gathered, tabulated and statistically analyzed.
Results:In vertical dislodging, Group (B) posterior of the saddle, recorded the highest retention force. In Group (B) anterior of the saddle recorded the lowest retention force. After 50,000 cyclic loading, Group (B) posterior of the saddle was higher than Group (A) in retention force. Dimensional changes and wear scratches appeared in the metal housing and plastic matrices in central and outer lines.
Conclusions: The distal position of the implant with positioner attachment has great retention during vertical dislodgment compared with mesial implant location with positioner attachment.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Giffin KM. Solving the distal extension removable partial denture base movement dilemma: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;76:347-9.
  2. Bui DX. Removable Partial Denture and its Effects on Periodontal Health. Dinh X. Bui, D.D.S., M.S. Available at: http://www.drbui.com/artrpd.html
  3. Germundsson B, Hellman M, Odman P. Effects of rehabilitation with conventional removable partial dentures on oral health--a cross-sectional study. Part II. A comparative study of treatment results at two Public Dental Clinics and the Faculty of Odontology in Gothenburg. Swed Dent J. 1984;9:233-40.
  4. Mijiritsky E. implants in conjunction with removable partial denture: A literature review. Implant Dent. 2007;16:146-54.
  5. Ohkubo C, Kueihara D, Shimpo Suzuki Y, Kokubo Y, Hosoi T. Effect of implant support on distal extension removable partial dentures: In vitro assessment .J Oral Rehabil. 2007;34:52-6.
  6. Chikunov I, Doan P, Vahidi F. Implant retained partial overdenture with resilient attachments. J Prosthodont. 2008;17:141-8.
  7. Kurtzman GM. The locator attachment: free standing versus bar-over dentures. Dental Labor Inter Plus. 2009;1:20-3.
  8. Rutkunas V, Mizutani H, Takahashi H, Iwasaki N. Wear simulation effects on overdenture stud attachments. Dent Mater J. 2011;30:845-53.
  9. Michelinakis G, Barclay CW, Smith PW. The influence of interim plant distance and attachment type on the retention characteristics of mandibular overdentures on 2 implants: Initial retention values. Int J Prosthodont. 2006;19:507-12.
  10. Doukas D, Michelinakis G, Smith PW, Barclay CW. The influence of interim plant distance and attachment type on the retention characteristics of mandibular overdentures on 2 implants: 6‑month fatigue retention values. Int J Prosthodont. 2008; 21:152‑4.
  11. Tabatabaian F, Sabouri A, Sobhani Z. Effect of Inter‑ Implant Distance on Retention and Stability of Overdenture. 36th Annual Conference of the European Prosthodontic Association, 2012. Sept 6‑8, Rotterdam, Netherland. 2012.
  12. Rabbani S, Juszczyk AS, Clark RK, Radford DR. Investigation of retentive force reduction and wear of the locator attachment system with different implant angulations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30:556- 63.
  13. Stephens GJ, di Vitale N, O'Sullivan E, McDonald A. The influence of interimplant divergence on the retention characteristics of Locator attachments, a laboratory study. J Prosthodont. 2014;23:467-75.
  14. Petropoulos VC, Smith W. Maximum dislodging forces of implant overdenture stud attachments. Int J Oral Maxillofacial Implants. 2002;17:526-35.
  15. Tehini G, Baba NZ, Majzoub Z, Nahas P, Berberi A, Rifai K. In Vitro Effect of Mastication on the Retention and Wear of Locator Attachments in a Flat Mandibular Ridge Model. J Prosthodont. 2018.
  16. Kleis WK, Kämmerer PW, Hartmann S, Al-Nawas B, Wagner W. A comparison of three different attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: one-year report. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010;12:209-18.
  17. Türk PE, Geckili O, Türk Y, Günay V, Bilgin T. In vitro comparison of the retentive properties of ball and locator attachments for implant overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29:1106-13.
  18. Alsabeeha N, Atieh M, Swain MV, Payne AG. Attachment systems for mandibular single-implant overdentures: an in vitro retention force investigation on different designs. Int J Prosthodontic. 2010;23:160-6.
  19. Sarnat AE. The efficiency of cobalt samarium (Co5Sm) magnets as retention units for overdentures. J Dent. 1983;11:324-33.
  20. Evtimovska E, Masri R, Driscoll CF, Romberg E. The change in retentive values of locator attachments and hader clips over time. J Prosthodont. 2009;18:479-83.
Alexandria Dental Journal
Volume 45, Issue 1
April 2020
Pages 112-116

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics