The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A COMPARISON OF THE MASTICATORY FUNCTION BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF IMPLANT SUPPORTED PROSTHESES AND COMPLETE DENTURE FOR FULLY EDENTULOUS PATIENTS

  • Lee, Jae-Hoon (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry at Yonsei University) ;
  • Kim, Woo-Hyun (Department of dental biomaterials and bioengineering, College of Dentistry at Yonsei University) ;
  • Shin, Rie-Hye (Private practice) ;
  • Lee, Keun-Woo (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry at Yonsei University)
  • Published : 2008.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The improvement in oral function and comfort from the dental implant appears to depend on the particular type of implant support used with the denture. The number and positioning of implants have an influence on the force transfer and subsequent stress distribution around implants. Nevertheless, a quantitative comparison has not been made between the types of implant prosthesis used with different materials compared to conventional complete denture. PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to assess the masticatory performance, bite force and impact of two different type of implant supported prostheses on oral health-related quality of life compared to conventional complete denture with GOHAI, validated oral-specific health status measures, the sieving method, and the Prescale Dental System. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From the years 1999 to 2006, a total of 30 completely edentulous patients in a single arch were selected from the Yonsei University Dental Hospital, Department of Prosthodontics and Implant Clinic in Seoul, S. Korea. Patients were divided into 3 groups of 10 each. Group HR was restored with fixed-detachable hybrid prostheses with resin teeth. Group FP had fixed dentures with porcelain teeth while Group CD had a complete denture. The masticatory performance was compared between 3 groups. RESULTS: The results showed a significant improvement in oral health-related quality of life with dental implants compared to a conventional denture in GOHAI comparison. Overall, implant prostheses showed a higher masticatory performance ($S_{50}$) and maximum bite force compared with conventional dentures (P < .05) but no differences between different implant supported prostheses (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Within the limitation of this study, the numbers of implant and material of implant prostheses does not appear to impact patient satisfaction, masticatory performance or bite force.

Keywords

References

  1. Lundqvist S, Carlsson GE. Maxillary fixed prostheses on osseointegrated dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:262-70 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90028-8
  2. Zarb GA, Symington JM. Osseointegrated dental implants: preliminary report on a replication study. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:271-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90029-X
  3. Hobkirk JA, Havthoulas TK. The influence of mandibular deformation, implant numbers, and loading position on detected forces in abutments supporting fixed implant superstructures. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:169-74 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70106-4
  4. Korioth TW, Chew CB, Chung DH. Effect of implant number on transverse bending moments during simulated unilateral loading of mandibular fixed-detachable prostheses. J Oral Implantol 1998;24:93-6 https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(1998)024<0093:EOINOT>2.3.CO;2
  5. Duyck J, Van Oosterwyck H, Vander Sloten J, De Cooman M, Puers R, Naert I. Magnitude and distribution of occlusal forces on oral implants supporting fixed prostheses: an in vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:465-75 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011005465.x
  6. Osier JF. Biomechanical load analysis of cantilevered implant systems. J Oral Implantol 1991;17:40-7
  7. Skalak R. Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49:843-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90361-X
  8. Zarb GA, Zarb FL. Tissue-integrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence 1985:241-82
  9. Stegaroiu R, Kusakari H, Nishiyama S, Miyakawa O. Influence of prosthesis material on stress distribution in bone and implant: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:781-90
  10. Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: the Toronto study. Part III: Problems and complications encountered. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:185-94 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90177-E
  11. Walton JN, MacEntee MI. Problems with prostheses on implant; retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:283-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(94)90468-5
  12. Brunski JB, Puleo DA, Nanci A. Biomaterials and biomechanics of oral and maxillofacial implants: current status and future developments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:15-46
  13. Kapur KK, Soman S. The effect of denture factors on masticatory performance. II. Influence of the polished surface contour of denture base. J Prosthet Dent 1965;15:231-40 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(65)90092-2
  14. Atchison KA, Dolan TA. Development of the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index. J Dent Educ 1990;54:680-7
  15. van der Bilt A, van der Glas HW, Mowlana F, Heath MR. A comparison between sieving and optical scanning for the determination of particle size distributions obtained by mastication in man. Arch Oral Biol 1993;38:159-62 https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(93)90201-V
  16. Goll GE. Production of accurately fitting full-arch implant frameworks: Part I-Clinical procedures. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:377-84 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(91)90266-Y
  17. Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Bohsali K, Goodacre CJ, Lang BR. Clinical methods for evaluating implant framework fit. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:7-13 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70229-5
  18. Wong MC, Liu JK, Lo EC. Translation and validation of the Chinese version of GOHAI. J Public Health Dent 2002;62:78-83 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-7325.2002.tb03426.x
  19. Naito M, Suzukamo Y, Nakayama T, Hamajima N, Fukuhara S. Linguistic adaptation and validation of the General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) in an elderly Japanese population. J Public Health Dent 2006;66:273-5 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-7325.2006.tb04081.x
  20. Tubert-Jeannin S, Riordan PJ, Morel-Papernot A, Porcheray S, Saby-Collet S. Validation of an oral health quality of life index (GOHAI) in France. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2003;31:275-84 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0528.2003.t01-1-00006.x
  21. Hagglin C, Berggren U, Lundgren J. A Swedish version of the GOHAI index. Psychometric properties and validation. Swed Dent J 2005;29:113-24
  22. Edlund J, Lamm CJ. Masticatory efficiency. J Oral Rehabil 1980;7:123-30 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1980.tb00428.x
  23. Lucas PW, Luke DA. Methods for analysing the breakdown of food in human mastication. Arch Oral Biol 1983;28:813-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(83)90037-7
  24. Olthoff LW, van der Bilt A, Bosman F, Kleizen HH. Distribution of particle sizes in food comminuted by human mastication. Arch Oral Biol 1984;29:899-903 https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(84)90089-X
  25. Miura H, Watanabe S, Isogai E, Miura K. Comparison of maximum bite force and dentate status between healthy and frail elderly persons. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28:592-5 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00716.x

Cited by

  1. Biomechanical factors related to occlusal load transfer in removable complete dentures vol.14, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10237-014-0642-0
  2. A Comparison of Biomechanical Properties of Implant-Retained Overdenture Based on Precision Attachment Type vol.14, pp.10, 2008, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14102598