• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.59 no.2
• /
• pp.173-180
• /
• 2021

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the retentive characteristics of the additional attachments used with implant bar attachment under repeated insertion/removal cycles. Materials and methods: The newly developed attachment and the commercially available attachment were investigated: ADD-Lock (AL), Locator blue (LB). Two fixtures were placed parallel to each other on the custom lower mounting, and patrix of each attachment was fixed to the fixture. Also, the matrix of each attachment was placed on the opposing upper mounting. A universal testing machine was used to measure the retentive force during initial, 100, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, and 2500 repeated insertion/removal cycles. Wear and deformation of the attachment s were observed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Mann-Whitney U test (α=.05) and wilcoxon signed-rank test (α=.05) were performed to compare retentive force between each group and before and after 2500 repeated insertion/removal cycles. Results: In terms of initial retentive force and retentive force after 2500 repeated insertion/removal cycles, the AL group (15.24 ± 1.46 N and 9.74 ± 1.16 N) showed significantly smaller values than the LB group (43.53 ± 12.39 N and 22.99 ± 4.77 N) (P<.05). Also, in the loss of retentive force, the AL group (5.50 ± 1.08 N, 36.08%) showed a smaller value than the LB group (20.54 ± 11.89 N, 47.19%) (P<.05). Based on SEM analysis, The AL group showed noticeable wear and deformation in the patrix and the LB group in the matrix. Conclusion: Locator showed a higher initial retentive force than newly developed attachment, while the loss of retentive force was also higher. Both additional attachments are considered to have sufficient retentive force after repeated insertion/removal cycles.

• Journal of the Korean Academy of Esthetic Dentistry
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.34-40
• /
• 2014

There are several treatment options for rehabilitation of partial edentulism including the use of conventional or implant-retained fixed prostheses. However, such prosthetic options cannot always be possible because of compromised general and oral health (i.e. loss of supporting tissues, medical reasons, extensive surgical protocol and osseointegration failure of dental implant) as well as the affordability of patients. In some cases, removable partial denture provides easier access for oral hygiene procedures and the ability to correct discrepancies in dental arch relationships than implant fixed prosthesis. Recently, Implant Supported Removable Partial Denture (ISRPD) where to place dental implant in strategic position has been suggested to improve the limitation and shortcomings of conventional RPD. ISPRD can overcome mechanical limition of conventional RPD by placing implant in a favorable position and can be cost-effective, prosthetic solution for partially edentulous patients who are not immediate candidates for extensive, fixed implant supported restorations. Incorporation of dental implants to improve the RPD support and retention and to enhance patient acceptance should be considered when treatment planning for RPD. In this case, 59 years old male patient who received dental treatment of implant fixed prosthesis on both side of the upper jaw and implant overdenture on lower jaw showed implant abutment screw fracture on #15i and osseointegration failure on multiple number of implants. After removing failed implants, we planned ISRPD using #15i,24i,25i,26i and #23 natural tooth for RPD abutment. We fabricated #23 surveyed crown,#24i=25i=26i surveyed bridge and #15i gold coping for support,retention and stability for RPD. Periodic follow up check for 2years has been performed since the ISRPD delivery to the patient. No sign of screw loosening, fracture or bone resorption around abutment implants were detected.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.49 no.2
• /
• pp.77-84
• /
• 2011

The benefits of implant supported overdenture are readily apparent for the fully edentulous patients and have been well documented, however, there is deficiency of the studies regarding the combination of implants with removable partial dentures for partially edentulous patients. The purpose of this article is to review the literature concerning implants with removable partial dentures and evaluate the evidence for this clinical approach. Through many clinical case reports and studies we have searched from a broad variety of journals, we present the six considerations needed to contemplate respecting implants with removable partial denture in partially edentulous patients. First, the connection between abutment tooth and removable partial denture has to be rigid and the link between implant and removable partial denture should be hinged. Second, a mesial rest acts better in the point of force distribution for distal extension removable partial denture and splinting between implants is also a favorable choice. Third, T bar has an advantage for implants which are used as abutments in distal extension removable partial denture. Forth, as we all known functional impression is better way to reproduce movement for distal extension removable partial denture. Fifth, indirect retainer and guiding plane on the proximal surfaces of terminal abutment teeth are important in preventing denture base lifting. Sixth, implants in conjunction with removable partial denture is superior in the esthetic and phonetic as well as cost-effective point of view. We also suggest that which place we should install implants for force distribution and which diameter and length of implants should be used. in this review article, we recommend to locate the implant near of the abutment tooth for esthetics or near of first molar position for good stress distribution. The diameter and length of implant also influence to stress distribution. When we compare to conservative partial denture, patients go for removable partial denture using implants due to convenience, better support and retention according to several studies. But it is true that we need to study more on this subject and collect long term follow up cases before we discuss on it. So it is enough to bring this subject into the surface of prosthetic treatment by this article.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.50 no.1
• /
• pp.10-20
• /
• 2012

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the stress distribution in mandibular implant-supported overdentures and tooth-supported overdentures with telescopic crowns. Materials and methods: The assumption of this study was that there were 2, 3, 4 natural teeth and implants which are located in the second premolar and canine regions in various distributed conditions. The mandible, teeth (or implants and abutments), and connectors are modeled, and analyzed with the commercial software, ANSYS Version 10.1. Stress distribution was evaluated under 150 N vertical load bilaterally on 3 experimental conditions - between canine areas, canine and $2^{nd}$ premolars, 10 mm posterior to $2^{nd}$ premolars. Results: Overall, the case of the implant group showed more stress than the case of the teeth group in stress distribution to bone. In stress distribution to superstructures of tooth and implants, there was no significant difference between TH group and IM group and the highest stress appeared in TH-IV and IM-IV. The stress caused from bar was much higher than those of implant and tooth. TH group showed less stress than IM group in stress distribution to abutment teeth and implant. Conclusion: The results shows that it is crucial to make sure that distance between impact loading point and abutment tooth does not get too far apart, and if it does, it is at best to set abutment tooth on premolar tooth region. It will be necessary to conduct more experiments on effects on implants, natural teeth and bone, in order to apply these results to a clinical treatment.