The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

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

DOI QR Code

Wear, microleakage and plastic deformation of an implant-supported chair-side bar system

  • Mehl, Christian Johannes (Dental Material Sciences, Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics and Dental Materials, Christian-Albrechts University at Kiel) ;
  • Steiner, Martin (Dental Material Sciences, Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics and Dental Materials, Christian-Albrechts University at Kiel) ;
  • Ludwig, Klaus (Dental Material Sciences, Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics and Dental Materials, Christian-Albrechts University at Kiel) ;
  • Kern, Matthias (Dental Material Sciences, Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics and Dental Materials, Christian-Albrechts University at Kiel)
  • Received : 2015.02.16
  • Accepted : 2015.06.18
  • Published : 2015.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. This in-vitro study was designed to evaluate retention forces, microleakage and plastic deformation of a prefabricated 2-implant bar attachment system (SFI-Bar, Cendres+$M{\acute{e}}taux$, Switzerland). MATERIALS AND METHODS. Two SFI implant-adapters were torqued with 35 Ncm into two implant analogues. Before the tube bars were finally sealed, the inner cavity of the tube bar was filled with liquid red dye to evaluate microleakage. As tube bar sealing agents three different materials were used (AGC Cem (AGC, resin based), Cervitec Plus (CP; varnish) and Gapseal (GS; silicone based). Four groups with eight specimens each were tested (GS, GS+AGC, AGC, CP). For cyclic loading, the attachment system was assembled parallel to the female counterparts in a chewing simulator. The mean retention forces of the initial and final ten cycles were statistically evaluated (ANOVA, ${\alpha}{\leq}.05$). RESULTS. All groups showed a significant loss of retention forces. Their means differed between 30-39 N initially and 22-28 N after 50,000 loading cycles. No significant statistical differences could be found between the groups at the beginning (P=.224), at the end (P=.257) or between the loss of retention forces (P=.288). Microleakage occurred initially only in some groups but after 10,000 loading cycles all groups exhibited microleakage. CONCLUSION. Long-term retention forces of the SFI-Bar remained above 20 N which can be considered clinically sufficient. The sealing agents in this study are not suitable to prevent microleakage.

Keywords

References

  1. Thompson GW, Kreisel PS. The impact of the demographics of aging and the edentulous condition on dental care services. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:56-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70194-5
  2. van Waas MA, Kalk W, van Zetten BL, van Os JH. Treatment results with immediate overdentures: an evaluation of 4.5 years. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:153-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90299-1
  3. Bergendal T, Engquist B. Implant-supported overdentures: a longitudinal prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:253-62.
  4. Timmerman R, Stoker GT, Wismeijer D, Oosterveld P, Vermeeren JI, van Waas MA. An eight-year follow-up to a randomized clinical trial of participant satisfaction with three types of mandibular implant-retained overdentures. J Dent Res 2004;83:630-3. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910408300809
  5. MacEntee MI, Walton JN, Glick N. A clinical trial of patient satisfaction and prosthodontic needs with ball and bar attachments for implant-retained complete overdentures: three-year results. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93:28-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.10.013
  6. Zou D, Wu Y, Huang W, Wang F, Wang S, Zhang Z, Zhang Z. 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: 566-73. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.3485
  7. Albrecht D, Ramierez A, Kremer U, Katsoulis J, Mericske-Stern R, Enkling N. Space requirement of a prefabricated bar on two interforaminal implants: a prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:143-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12304
  8. Petropoulos VC, Smith W, Kousvelari E. Comparison of retention and release periods for implant overdenture attachments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:176-85.
  9. Leung T, Preiskel HW. Retention profiles of stud-type precision attachments. Int J Prosthodont 1991;4:175-9.
  10. Dudic A, Mericske-Stern R. Retention mechanisms and prosthetic complications of implant-supported mandibular overdentures: long-term results. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2002;4:212-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2002.tb00173.x
  11. Naert I, Alsaadi G, Quirynen M. Prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction with two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a 10-year randomized clinical study. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:401-10.
  12. Naert I, Alsaadi G, van Steenberghe D, Quirynen M. A 10-year randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining mandibular overdentures: peri-implant outcome. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:695-702.
  13. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:121-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1
  14. Wee AG, Aquilino SA, Schneider RL. Strategies to achieve fit in implant prosthodontics: a review of the literature. Int J Prosthodont 1999;12:167-78.
  15. Deslis A, Hasan I, Bourauel C, Bayer S, Stark H, Keilig L. Numerical investigations of the loading behaviour of a prefabricated non-rigid bar system. Ann Anat 2012;194:538-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2012.04.004
  16. Kobayashi M, Srinivasan M, Ammann P, Perriard J, Ohkubo C, Muller F, Belser UC, Schimmel M. Effects of in vitro cyclic dislodging on retentive force and removal torque of three overdenture attachment systems. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:426-34.
  17. Ha SR, Kim SH, Song SI, Hong ST, Kim GY. Implantsupported overdenture with prefabricated bar attachment system in mandibular edentulous patient. J Adv Prosthodont 2012;4:254-8. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2012.4.4.254
  18. Kim HY, Kim RJ, Qadeer S, Jeong CM, Shin SW, Huh JB. Immediate loading on mandibular edentulous patient with SFI Bar(R) overdenture. J Adv Prosthodont 2011;3:47-50. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2011.3.1.47
  19. Bayer S, Gruner M, Keilig L, Hultenschmidt R, Nicolay C, Bourauel C, Utz KH, Stark H. Investigation of the wear of prefabricated attachments--an in vitro study of retention forces and fitting tolerances. Quintessence Int 2007;38:e229-37.
  20. Wolf K, Ludwig K, Hartfil H, Kern M. Analysis of retention and wear of ball attachments. Quintessence Int 2009;40:405-12.
  21. Harder S, Dimaczek B, Acil Y, Terheyden H, Freitag-Wolf S, Kern M. Molecular leakage at implant-abutment connectionin vitro investigation of tightness of internal conical implantabutment connections against endotoxin penetration. Clin Oral Investig 2010;14:427-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0317-x
  22. Fritzemeier C, Schmudderich W. Prophylaxis of periimplantitis by sealing of the implant interiors with $GapSeal^{(R)}$. Implantol 2007;15:71-9.

Cited by

  1. Bacterial Leakage at Implant-abutment Interface with Different Intermediate Materials vol.45, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-18-00313