• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.9 no.3
• /
• pp.143-151
• /
• 2017

PURPOSE. The design of the attachment must provide an optimum stress distribution around the implant. In this study, for implant overdentures with a bar/clip attachment or a locator attachment, the stress transmitted to the implant in accordance with the change in the denture base length and the vertical pressure was measured and analyzed. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Test model was created with epoxy resin. The strain gauges made a tight contact with implant surfaces. A universal testing machine was used to exert a vertical pressure on the mandibular implant overdenture and the strain rate of the implants was measured. RESULTS. Means and standard deviations of the maximum micro-deformation rates were determined. 1) Locator attachment: The implants on the working side generally showed higher strain than those on the non-working side. Tensile force was observed on the mesial surface of the implant on the working side, and the compressive force was applied to the buccal surface and on the surfaces of the implant on the non-working side. 2) Bar/clip attachment: The implants on the both non-working and working sides showed high strain; all surfaces except the mesial surface of the implant on the non-working side showed a compressive force. CONCLUSION. To minimize the strain on implants in mandibular implant overdentures, the attachment of the implant should be carefully selected and the denture base should be extended as much as possible.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.43 no.5
• /
• pp.650-661
• /
• 2005

Statement of problem: It could be hypothesised that attachments, which provide more retention against vortical and horizontal dislodgement, will be associated with more favorable parameters of oral function. Purpose: This study was to provide data of initial retentive force and retention loss of different bar attachment systems recommended for use with maxillary implant overdentures. Material and method: 4 implants were placed in the anterior region of edentulous maxilla, five different systems of bar attachment were fabricated as follows: cantilevered Hader bar using clips (Type 1), Hader bar using clips without cantilever (Type 2), Hader bar using clip and ERA attachment orange male (Type 3), Hader bar using clip and ERA attachment white male (Type 4), and Bar using magnets (Type 5). Each samples were placed in the universal testing machine for determination of retentive forces(at initial and after every 200 cycles up to 1,000 cycles). Results and Conclusion 1. Attachment type 1 showed the biggest initial retentive force followed by type 3, type 2, type 4, and lastly type 5(P<0.001). 2. After 1,000 cycles of repeated removals of attachments, significant loss of retentive forces was taken place except for attachment type 5. 3. After 1,000 cycles of repeated removals, the loss of retentive force between type 1 and type 2, which used Hader bar and clip attachments. was greater in type 1 that had wider clip formation. And between type 3 and type 4, which used ERA attachments, the loss of retentive force was greater in type 4 that had white male attached (P<0.001). 4. After 1.000 cycles of repeated removals, attachment type 3 showed the biggest retentive force followed by type 2, type 4, type 1 and lastly type. 5. There was no significant difference between attachment type 3 and 4, and type 4 and 1(P<0.001).

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.375-390
• /
• 2009

Statement of problem: Implant supported overdenture is accepted widely as a way to restore edentulous ridge providing better retention and support of dentures. Various types of attachment for overdenture have been developed. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of attachment type in implant overdentures on the biomechanical stress distribution in the surrounding bone, prosthesis and interface between implant and bone. Material and methods: Finite element analysis method was used. Average CT image of mandibular body(Digital $Korea^{(R)}$, KISTI, Korea) was used to produce a mandibular model. Overdentures were placed instead of mandibular teeth and 2mm of mucosa was inserted between the overdenture and mandible. Two implants($USII^{(R)}$, Osstem, Korea) were placed at both cuspid area and 4 types of overdenture were fabricated ; ball and socket, Locator, magnet and bar type. Load was applied on the from second premolar to second molar tooth area. 6 times of finite element analyses were performed according to the direction of the force $90^{\circ}$, $45^{\circ}$, $0^{\circ}$ and unilateral or bilateral force applied. The stress at interface between implants and bone, and prosthesis and the bone around implants ware compared using von Mises stress. The results were explained with color coded graphs based on the equivalent stress to distinguish the force distribution pattern and the site of maximum stress concentration. Results: Unilateral loading showed that connection area between implant fixture and bar generated maximum stress in bar type overdentures. Bar type produced 100 Mpa which means the most among 4 types of attachments. Bilateral loading, however, showed that bar type was more stable than other implants(magnet, ball and socket). 26 Mpa of bar type was about a half of other types on overdenture under $90^{\circ}$ bilateral loading. Conclusions: In any directions of stress, bar type was proved to be the most vulnerable type in both implants and overdentures. Interface stress did not show any significant difference in stress distribution pattern.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.42 no.4
• /
• pp.397-411
• /
• 2004

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of anchorage systems and palatal coverage of denture base on load transfer in maxillary implant-supported overdenture. Material and methods: Maxillary implant -supported overdentures in which 4 implants were placed in the anterior region of edentulous maxilla were fabricated, and stress distribution patterns in implant supporting bone in the case of unilateral vertical loading on maxillary right first molar were compared with each other depending on various types of anchorage system and palatal coverage extent of denture base using three-dimensional photoelastic stress analysis. Two photoelastic overdenture models were fabricated in each anchorage system to compare with the palatal coverage extent of denture base, as a result we got eight models : Hader bar using clips(type 1), cantilevered Hader bar using clips(type 2), Hader bar using clip and ERA attachments(type 3), cantilevered milled-bar using swivel-latchs and frictional pins(type 4). Result: 1. In all experimental models, the highest stress was concentrated on the most distal implant supporting bone on loaded side. 2. In every experimental models with or without palatal coverage of denture base, maximum fringe orders on the distal ipsilateral implant supporting bone in an ascending order is as follows; type 3, type 1, type 4, and type 2. 3. Each implants showed compressive stresses in all experimental models with palatal coverage of denture base, but in the case of those without palatal coverage of denture base, tensile stresses were observed in the distal contralateral implant supporting bone. 4. In all anchorage system without palatal coverage of denture base, higher stresses were concentrated on the most distal implant supporting bone on loaded side. 5. The type of anchorage system affected in load transfer more than palatal coverage extent of the denture base. Conclusion: To the results mentioned above, in the case of patients with unfavorable biomechanical conditions such as not sufficient number of supporting implants, short length of the implant, and poor bone quality, selecting a resilient type attachment or minimizing the distal cantilevered bar is considered to be an appropriate method to prevent overloading on implants by reducing cantilever effect and gaining more support from the distal residual ridge.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.33 no.1 s.308
• /
• pp.47-58
• /
• 1995

• 대한치과보철학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2001.04a
• /
• pp.62-62
• /
• 2001

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.55-62
• /
• 2017

Overdenture using dental implants could improve the problems of conventional complete denture function which are pain during mastication, insufficient retention and stability. Locator attachment used widely for implant-retained overdenture has advantages that it needs the smallest vertical space and also its nylon male cap allows personalized retention for each case. However its retention force decreases rapidly with function rather than the bar and ball attachment. So, implant fixture should be positioned as parallel as possible.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.80-86
• /
• 2006

Cleidocranial dysplasia is rare inherited skeletal dysplasia. It was first reported by Martin in 1765. Subsequently, Marie and Sainton independently documented the criteria of the disease. Cleidocranial dysplasia is a bone disorder caused by a defect in the CBFA1 gene of chromosome 6p21. This gene guides osteoblastic differentiation and appropriate bone formation. Patient with cleidocranial dysplasia has maxillary deficiency, high and narrow palate, prolonged retention of primary teeth, unerupted permanent teeth and supernumerary teeth. Therapeutic options in these patients include of autotransplantation of selected impacted teeth, forced eruption of permanent teeth, full denture, overdenture and implant-supported prosthesis. We report a patient with cleidocranial dysplasia. This patient was treated with implant supported bar overdenture. Despite of gene defect that affects osteoblastic activity, bone remodeling and osseointegration occurred in our patient. So, we report this case with review of literature.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.57 no.4
• /
• pp.364-373
• /
• 2019

Unlike class I patients, skeletal class II patients have unstable occlusion thus leading to instability of mandibular complete denture. Therefore, mandibular implant overdenture has been the standard of care due to its advantages in stability and retention. The types of attachments can be divided into two categories: solitary and bar type. The indications vary between two categories. In this clinical report, digital technology was utilized from the implant planning to the choice of appropriate attachment. Implants were placed at the desired location as previously planned in terms of angle and depth. Maxillary removable partial denture and mandibular implant overdenture are expected to have fair prognosis.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.327-353
• /
• 1994

This study was performed to evaluate the effects of number and alignment of implant fixture and various bar designs on the retention of denture and the stress distribution. Six kinds of photoelastic mandibular models and nine kinds of overdenture specimens were designed. A unilateral vertical load was gradually applied on the right first molar to calculate the maximal dislodgement load of each specimen. A unilateral vertical load of 17 Kgf was applied on the right first molar and a vertical load of 10 Kgf was applied on the interincisal edge region. The stress pattern which developed in each photoelastic model was analyzed by the reflection polariscope. The results obtained were as follows: 1. The maximal dislodgement load reversely increased with the distance from the loading point to the implant fixture, while it linearly increased with that from the most posterior implant fixture to the mesial clip. The maximal dislodgement load also increased with the use of a cantilever bar. 2. Under the posterior vertical load, the stress to the supporting tissue of the denture base increased with the distance from the loading point to the implant future. The stress concentration on the apical area of the implant future reversely increased with the distance from the loading point to the implant future. 3. In the overdentures supported by two implant fixtures under the posterior vertical load. the specimen implanted on lateral incisor areas with a cantilever bar exhibited more favorable stress distribution than that without a cantilever bar. The specimen implanted on the canine areas without a cantilever bar, however, exhibited more favorable stress distribution. 4. In the overdentures supported by three implant fixtures. the specimen implanted ell the midline and canine areas exhibited more favorable stress distribution than that implanted oil the midline and the first premolar areas. 5. In the overdentures supported by four implant fixtures. the specimen implanted with two adjacent implant fixtures exhibited more favorable stress distribution than that implanted at equal distance under the posterior vertical load. 6. Under the anterior vertical load, the overdentures supported by three implant fixtures exhibited stress concentration on the supporting structure of the middle implant future. In overdentures supported by two or four implant futures, no significant difference was noted in stress distribution between the types of bars. These results indicate that the greater the number of implant fixtures, the better the stress distribution is. A favorable stress distribution may be obtained in the overdentures supported by two or three implant fixtures, if the location and the design of the bar are appropriate.