Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2021.13.1.55

Influence of marginal bone resorption on two mini implant-retained mandibular overdenture: An in vitro study  

Guo, Ying (Department of Stomatology, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University)
Kono, Kentaro (Department of Removable Prosthodontics, Tsurumi University School of Dental Medicine)
Suzuki, Yasunori (Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Implantology, Tsurumi University School of Dental Medicine)
Ohkubo, Chikahiro (Department of Removable Prosthodontics, Tsurumi University School of Dental Medicine)
Zeng, Jian-Yu (Center for Dental Implantology, School of Stomatology, Capital Medical University)
Zhang, Jing (Center for Dental Implantology, School of Stomatology, Capital Medical University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics / v.13, no.1, 2021 , pp. 55-64 More about this Journal
Abstract
PURPOSE. To investigate the biomechanical effect of marginal bone resorption (MBR) on the mandibular mini implant (MI)-retained overdenture (MI-OD) on the edentulous model. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The experimental mandibular edentulous model was modified from a commercial model with 2 mm thick artificial soft tissue under denture base. Two MIs (Φ2.6 mm × 10 mm) were bilaterally placed between the lateral incisor and the canine area and attached with magnetic attachments. Three groups were set up as follows: 1) alveolar bone around the MI without MBR (normal group), 2) with MBR to 1/2 the length of the implant (resorption group), and 3) complete denture (CD) without MI (CD group). Strain around the MI, pressure near the first molar area, and displacement of denture were simultaneously measured, loading up to 50 N under bilateral/unilateral loading. Statistical analysis was performed using independent-samples t test and one-way ANOVA (α=.05). RESULTS. The strain around the MI with MBR was approximately 1.5 times higher than that without MBR. The pressure in CD was higher than in MI-ODs (P<.05), while there was no statistical difference between the normal and resorption group (P>.05). Similarly, the CD demonstrated a greater displacement of the denture base than did the MI-ODs during bilateral and unilateral loadings (P<.05). CONCLUSION. The strain around the MI with MBR was approximately 1.5 times higher than that without MBR. The pressure on posterior alveolar ridge and denture displacement of MI-ODs significantly decreased compared to CDs, even when MBR occurs. Bilateral balanced occlusion was recommended for MI-ODs, especially when MBR occurred.
Keywords
Mini dental implant-retained overdenture (MI-OD); Marginal bone resorption (MBR); Magnetic attachment; Strain; Pressure distribution;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Leitao-Almeida B, Camps-Font O, Correia A, Mir-Mari J, Figueiredo R, Valmaseda-Castellon E. Effect of crown to implant ratio and implantoplasty on the fracture resistance of narrow dental implants with marginal bone loss: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2020;20:329.   DOI
2 Isidor F. Influence of forces on peri-implant bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:8-18.   DOI
3 Oh TJ, Yoon J, Misch CE, Wang HL. The causes of early implant bone loss: myth or science? J Periodontol 2002;73:322-33.   DOI
4 Reilly DT, Burstein AH. The elastic and ultimate properties of compact bone tissue. J Biomech 1975;8:393-405.   DOI
5 Yoon KH, Kim SG, Lee JH, Suh SW. 3D finite element analysis of changes in stress levels and distributions for an osseointegrated implant after vertical bone loss. Implant Dent 2011;20:354-9.   DOI
6 Romeed SA, Malik R, Dunne SM. Marginal bone loss influence on the biomechanics of single implant crowns. J Craniofac Surg 2013;24:1459-65.   DOI
7 Unsal GS, Erbasar GNH, Aykent F, Ozyilmaz OY, Ozdogan MS. Evaluation of stress distribution on mandibular implant-supported overdentures with different bone heights and attachment types: a 3D finite element analysis. J Oral Implantol 2019;45:363-70.   DOI
8 Kono K, Kurihara D, Suzuki Y, Ohkubo C. In vitro assessment of mandibular single/two implant-retained overdentures using stress-breaking attachments. Implant Dent 2014;23:456-62.
9 Sato H, Kobayashi T, Nomura T, Tanabe N, Takafuji K, Kihara H, Kondo H. Oral mucosa pressure caused by mandibular implant overdenture with different types of attachments. J Prosthodont Res 2020;64:145-51.   DOI
10 Leem HW, Cho IH, Lee JH, Choi YS. A study on the changes in attractive force of magnetic attachments for overdenture. J Adv Prosthodont 2016;8:9-15.   DOI
11 Patil PG, Seow LL, Uddanwadikar R, Ukey PD. Biomechanical behavior of mandibular overdenture retained by two standard implants or 2 mini implants: A 3-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2021;125:138.e1-8.   DOI
12 Lee E, Shin SY. The influence of the number and the type of magnetic attachment on the retention of mandibular mini implant overdenture. J Adv Prosthodont 2017;9:14-21.   DOI
13 Takeshita S, Kanazawa M, Minakuchi S. Stress analysis of mandibular two-implant overdenture with different attachment systems. Dent Mater J 2011;30:928-34.   DOI
14 Takahashi T, Gonda T, Tomita A, Maeda Y. Effect of attachment type on implant strain in maxillary implant overdentures: Comparison of ball, locator, and magnet attachments. Part 2: Palateless dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018;33:357-64.   DOI
15 Shahmiri R, Aarts JM, Bennani V, Das R, Swain MV. Strain distribution in a Kennedy Class I implant assisted removable partial denture under various loading conditions. Int J Dent 2013;2013:351279.   DOI
16 Ribeiro AB, Della Vecchia MP, Cunha TR, Sorgini DB, Dos Reis AC, Muglia VA, de Albuquerque RF Jr, de Souza RF. Short-term post-operative pain and discomfort following insertion of mini-implants for retaining mandibular overdentures: a randomized controlled trial. J Oral Rehabil 2015;42:605-14.   DOI
17 Muller F, Duvernay E, Loup A, Vazquez L, Herrmann FR, Schimmel M. Implant-supported mandibular overdentures in very old adults: a randomized controlled trial. J Dent Res 2013;92:154S-60S.   DOI
18 Ellis JS, Levine A, Bedos C, Mojon P, Rosberger Z, Feine J, Thomason JM. Refusal of implant supported mandibular overdentures by elderly patients. Gerodontology 2011;28:62-8.   DOI
19 Marcello-Machado RM, Faot F, Schuster AJ, Nascimento GG, Del Bel Cury AA. Mini-implants and narrow diameter implants as mandibular overdenture retainers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and radiographic outcomes. J Oral Rehabil 2018;45: 161-83.   DOI
20 Papadimitriou DE, Friedland B, Gannam C, Salari S, Gallucci GO. Narrow-diameter versus standard-diameter implants and their effect on the need for guided bone regeneration: a virtual three-dimensional study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17:1127-33.   DOI
21 Jawad S, Barclay C, Whittaker W, Tickle M, Walsh T. A pilot randomised controlled trial evaluating mini and conventional implant retained dentures on the function and quality of life of patients with an edentulous mandible. BMC Oral Health 2017;17:53.   DOI
22 Petrie CS, Williams JL. Comparative evaluation of implant designs: influence of diameter, length, and taper on strains in the alveolar crest. A three-dimensional finite-element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:486-94.   DOI
23 Monje A, Chappuis V, Monje F, Munoz F, Wang HL, Urban IA, Buser D. The critical peri-implant buccal bone wall thickness revisited: an experimental study in the beagle dog. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019;34:1328-36.   DOI
24 Aunmeungtong W, Kumchai T, Strietzel FP, Reichart PA, Khongkhunthian P. Comparative clinical study of conventional dental implants and mini dental implants for mandibular overdentures: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017;19:328-40.   DOI
25 Thomason JM, Feine J, Exley C, Moynihan P, Muller F, Naert I, Ellis JS, Barclay C, Butterworth C, Scott B, Lynch C, Stewardson D, Smith P, Welfare R, Hyde P, McAndrew R, Fenlon M, Barclay S, Barker D. Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients-the York Consensus Statement. Br Dent J 2009;207:185-6.   DOI
26 Preoteasa E, Imre M, Preoteasa CT. A 3-year follow-up study of overdentures retained by mini-dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:1170-6.   DOI
27 Kanazawa M, Feine J, Esfandiari S. Clinical guidelines and procedures for provision of mandibular overdentures on 4 mini-dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 117:22-7.   DOI
28 Morneburg TR, Proschel PA. Success rates of microimplants in edentulous patients with residual ridge resorption. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:270-6.
29 Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:11-25.
30 Qian J, Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Reasons for marginal bone loss around oral implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:792-807.   DOI
31 Ozgur GO, Kazancioglu HO, Demirtas N, Deger S, Ak G. Risk factors associated with implant marginal bone loss: a retrospective 6-year follow-up study. Implant Dent 2016;25:122-7.   DOI
32 Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, Head T, Heydecke G, Lund JP, MacEntee M, Mericske-Stern R, Mojon P, Morais JA, Naert I, Payne AG, Penrod J, Stoker GT, Tawse-Smith A, Taylor TD, Thomason JM, Thomson WM, Wismeijer D. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Gerodontology 2002;19:3-4.   DOI
33 Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Singh M, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. Success criteria in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Dent Res 2012;91:242-8.   DOI
34 Saaby M, Karring E, Schou S, Isidor F. Factors influencing severity of peri-implantitis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:7-12.   DOI
35 Spies BC, Bateli M, Ben Rahal G, Christmann M, Vach K, Kohal RJ. Does oral implant design affect marginal bone loss? Results of a parallel-group randomized controlled equivalence trial. Biomed Res Int 2018; 2018:8436437.   DOI
36 Mundt T, Schwahn C, Biffar R, Heinemann F. Changes in bone levels around mini-implants in edentulous arches. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015;30:1149-55.   DOI
37 Saravi BE, Putz M, Patzelt S, Alkalak A, Uelkuemen S, Boeker M. Marginal bone loss around oral implants supporting fixed versus removable prostheses: a systematic review. Int J Implant Dent 2020;6:20.   DOI
38 Jawad S, Clarke PT. Survival of mini dental implants used to retain mandibular complete overdentures: systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019; 34:343-56.   DOI
39 Linetskiy I, Demenko V, Linetska L, Yefremov O. Impact of annual bone loss and different bone quality on dental implant success - a finite element study. Comput Biol Med 2017;91:318-25.   DOI
40 Galindo-Moreno P, Leon-Cano A, Ortega-Oller I, Monje A, O Valle F, Catena A. Marginal bone loss as success criterion in implant dentistry: beyond 2 mm. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:e28-34.   DOI