• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.31-69
• /
• 1996

The purpose of this investigation was to analyze stress distribution in implant supporting tissue according to different types of attachments such as combination bar attachment, Hader bar attachment, O-Ring attachment and Dal-Ro attachment that are used in mandibular overdenture by using two osseointegrated implants, to study the influence that POM IMC used in bar type attachment has in implant supporting tissue and compare the preceding analyses to find out an effective stress distribution method. Three dimensional photoelastic method was used to obtain the following results. (A) Analysis of stress distribution according to attachment type 1. Under vertical load condition, compressive stress was seen at implant supporting area of working side on all the photoelastic models but in Hader bar attachment tensional stress was seen at distal upper area of implant supporting area. Relatively Hader bar and O-Ring attachment showed even stress distribution pattern. 2. Under vertical load condition, compressive stress at implant apex area and tensional stress at implant lateral supporting area were seen at nonworking side of all models. 3. Under $25^{\circ}$ lateral load condition, general compressive stress was seen at working side implant supporting area in most of the models, especially at distal upper supporting area higher compressive stress concentration was seen in combination bar attachment and tensional stress concentration, in Hader bar attachment. 4. Under $25^{\circ}$ lateral load condition, compressive stress at implant apex area and tensional stress at implant lateral supporting area were seen at nonworking side of all models, except O-Ring model which showed compressive stress only. (B) Influence of POM IMC to stress distribution in bar type attachment 5. Under vertical load condition, better stress distribution pattern was seen at working side of combination bar and Hader bar attachment model using POM IMC. 6. Under vertical load condition, stress value was increased at nonworking side of combination bar attachment model using POM IMC and tendency of increasing compression was seen at nonworking side of Hader bar attachment model using POM IMC. 7. Under $25^{\circ}$ lateral load condition, better stress distribution pattern was seen at working side of combination bar attachment model using POM IMC but tendency of increasing stress was seen on working side of Hader bar attachment model using POM IMC. 8. Under $25^{\circ}$ lateral load condition, stress reduction was seen at nonworking side of combination bar attachment model using POM IMC but tendency of increasing stress was seen at nonworking side of Hader bar attachment model using POM IMC.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.38 no.1
• /
• pp.98-107
• /
• 2000

Three linear strain gauges (KFR-02N-120-C1-23, Kyowa, Japan) were placed around the abutment of implant future and the maximum axial loads on the mandibular implants supporting over dentures were registered in experimental model when the overdenture was removed. The overdenture attachments used in this study were Round bar Hader bar, Dolder bar with and with out spacer. The retention of bar attachment was measured using universal testing machine while being con-trolled by Activating set and Deactivator except in case of the Hader bar. Simultaneously strains were recorded with the strain smart program in strain P-6000 series (Measurement group, Raleigh, USA). The maximum axial load was calculated and compared with each other. The results were as follows: 1. The amount and the timing of the maximum axial loads were different between the right and left implant in all attachment systems. 2. The retention of bar attachment except Hader bar could be adjusted but the controllability was different among the attachment systems. 3. The more the axial load, the higher the retention with Hader bar and Dolder bar without spacer. but the tendency of increase was not shown with round bar and Dolder bar with spacer.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.5 no.3
• /
• pp.333-340
• /
• 2013

PURPOSE. This study was accomplished to assess the biomechanical state of different retaining methods of bar implant-overdenture. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Two 3D finite element models were designed. The first model included implant overdenture retained by Hader-clip attachment, while the second model included two extracoronal resilient attachment (ERA) studs added distally to Hader splint bar. A non-linear frictional contact type was assumed between overdentures and mucosa to represent sliding and rotational movements among different attachment components. A 200 N was applied at the molar region unilaterally and perpendicular to the occlusal plane. Additionally, the mandible was restrained at their ramus ends. The maximum equivalent stress and strain (von Mises) were recorded and analyzed at the bone-implant interface level. RESULTS. The values of von Mises stress and strain of the first model at bone-implant interface were higher than their counterparts of the second model. Stress concentration and high value of strain were recognized surrounding implant of the unloaded side in both models. CONCLUSION. There were different patterns of stress-strain distribution at bone-implant interface between the studied attachment designs. Hader bar-clip attachment showed better biomechanical behavior than adding ERA studs distal to hader bar.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.577-608
• /
• 1997

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the stress distribution in the bone around dental implants supporting mandibular overdenture according to the number of implant and the type of attachment. Two or four implants were placed in an edentulous mandibular model and three dimensional photoelastic stress analysis was carried out to measure the fringe order around the implant supporting structure and also to calculate principal stress components at cervical area of each implant. The attachments tested were rigid and resilient type of Dolder bar, Round bar, Hader bar and Dal-Ro attchment. The results were as follows ; 1. In 2-implant supported overdenture using Round bar, Hader bar, and Dal-Ro attachment, compressive stress pattern was observed on the supporting structure of implant on loaded side, while tensile stress pattern in unloaded side. 2. In 2-implant supported overdenture using Dolder bar, the rigid Dolder bar shared the occlusal loads between 2 implants in a more favorable manner than was exhibited by the resilient type, while the resilient type placed a more stress on the distocervical area of the implant on the loaded side. But compressive stress pattern was observed in both the loaded and unloaded sides in either case. 3. In 2-implant supported overdenture, rigid and resilient type of Dolder bar exhibited more cross arch involvement than the Round bar, Hader bar, or Dal-Ro attachment. 4. In 4-implant supported overdenture using resilient Dolder bar and Hader bar, stress turned out to be distributed evenly among the implants between loaded and unloaded side, but thor was no reduction in the magnitude of the stress in the surrounding structure of implant contratry to 2-implant supported overdenture. 5. The stress pattern at cervical area of implant was different with the number of implant or the type of attachment but the overload, harmful to surrounding structure of implant, was not observed.

• Journal of the Korean Academy of Esthetic Dentistry
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.39-51
• /
• 2017

In order to solve the problem of repositioning the old hader bar attachment and to restore the non-esthetic facial profile and improper occlusion of the edentulous patient due to inadequate jaw relation, determination of vertical dimension of occlusion and tooth arrangement were performed similar to the natural teeth before the teeth loss. In addition to improving the esthetics by restoring the inadequate facial appearance, the composite resin was used to maximize the patient's secondary esthetic satisfaction with the denture.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.56 no.4
• /
• pp.368-374
• /
• 2018

In this case, the patient was restored with gold Hader bar mandibular implant overdenture using two implants about 10 years ago, and the retentive force was lost due to severe wear of the bar due to 3.5 years use. The overdenture was repaired using a Locator attachment, but the male part was completely worn after 6.5 years use. Finally, we used a hybrid telescopic double crown with a friction pin to fabricate a new implant overdenture, which was observed for 2 years and showed excellent prognosis. So, we describe the cause of failure of each attachment (Gold Hader bar, Locator) in two implant overdentures and report on the advantages and disadvantages of double crown implant overdenture and the conditions for success.

• 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).

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.40 no.5
• /
• pp.507-524
• /
• 2002

Load transfer of implant overdenture varies depending on anchorage systems that are the design of the superstructure and substructure and the choice of attachment. Overload by using improper anchorage system not only will cause fracture of the framework or screw but also may cause failure of osseointegration. Choosing anchorage system in making prosthesis, therefore, can be considered to be one of the most important factors that affect long-term success of implant treatment. In this study, in order to determine the effect of anchorage systems on load transfer in mandibular implant overdenture in which 4 implants were placed in the interforaminal region, patterns of stress distribution in implant supporting bone in case of unilateral vertical loading on mandibular left first molar were compared each other according to various types of anchorage system using three-dimensional photoelastic stress analysis. The five photoelastic overdenture models utilizing Hader bar without cantilever using clips(type 1), cantilevered Hader bar using clips(type 2), cantilevered Hader bar with milled surface using clips(type 3), cantilevered milled-bar using swivel-latchs and frictional pins(type 4), and Hader bar using clip and ERA attachments(type 5), and one cantilevered fixed-detachable prosthesis(type 6) model as control were fabricated. The following conclusions were drawn within the limitations of this study, 1. In all experimental models. the highest stress was concentrated on the most distal implant supporting bone on loaded side. 2. Maximum fringe orders on ipsilateral distal implant supporting bone in a ascending order is as follows: type 5, type 1, type 4, type 2 and type 3, and type 6. 3. Regardless of anchorage systems. more or less stresses were generated on the residual ridge under distal extension base of all overdenture models. To summarize the above mentioned results, in case of the patients with unfavorable biomechanical conditions such as not sufficient number of supporting implants, short length of the implant and unfavorable antero-posterior spread. selecting resilient type attachment or minimizing distal cantilever bar is considered to be appropriate methods to prevent overloading on implants by reducing cantilever effect and gaining more support from the distal residual ridge.

• 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 Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.37 no.1
• /
• pp.93-103
• /
• 1999

Stress distribution on mandibular implants supporting overdentures were registered in vitro experimental model by means of 4 rosette gauges which were placed around the implant. The overdenture attachments used in this study were the Resilient Dolder bar, Rigid Bolder bar, Round bar, Hader bar & Dal-Ro attachment. An occlusal jig was placed on the overdenture and the loading sites were 3 points which mimicked working, balancing, and median relations. With 5 and 10kg loading, strains were measured by strain indicator(P-3500, Measurement group, Raleigh, USA), and using these data, maximum and minimum principal stresses and Von Mises stress were calculated and evaluated. The results were as follows : There was a tendency of high stress concentration in the lingual side of the implant, and in the buccal side low stress was developed regardless of the attachment systems. The resilient Bolder bar concentrated highest stress among the attachment systems, and the Round bar and the Dal-Ro attachment provided comparatively low stresses around the implant. The rigid Bolder bar concentrated high stress in the mesial side, and the Dal-Ro attachment developed tensile stress patterns in the lingual and distal sides of the implant at the balancing relation.