• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.351-359
• /
• 2008

It is difficult to provide prosthodontic treatment to fully edentulous patients with severe alveolar bone resorption, because this makes patents hard to endure functional load, and to adapt to the dentures, which result in emotional stress to patients. Implant supported overdenture can be chosen to solve these problems. Among several types of them, the implant retained and tissue supported overdenture, is available to the patients of low masticatory force with the reduced cost. Attachments also can be used for increasing retention and esthetics in dentures. Especially, $Locator^{(R)}$ system needs a small vertical interarch space for restoration and is able to compensate the difference of angle between fixtures. In this study, we restored maxilla with conventional complete denture, and mandible with implant and tissue supported overdenture and $Locator^{(R)}$ system.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.47-50
• /
• 2011

Despite the greater retention and low maintenance of bar attachment system, the longer clinical time and increased number of visits were the assignments to overcome in bar attachment system. This case report describes SFI-Bar$^{(R)}$ (Cendres et Me$\'{e}$taux, Biel/Bienne, Switzerland) to be solve those problems. A 65-year-old female, who had severely absorbed mandible, hoped to wear a stable mandibular denture without pain. As soon as two implants were placed on mandible, a tube bar was connected to two adaptors connected to each implant. The length of the tube bar was adjusted considering inter implant distance, and reconnected to the adaptors. Finally a female part was seated beneath the denture. This case report showed that a satisfactory clinical result was achieved by delivering bar overdenture immediately after implant placement without laboratory procedure.

• 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.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.55 no.3
• /
• pp.292-299
• /
• 2017

Long-term alveolar bone resorption in edentulous patient causes difficulty in denture use. Applying an implant overdenture with 2 to 4 implants to edentulous patient is easily approachable. Moreover, it improves denture stability, support, and retention. Milled bar, the attachment used in implant overdenture, can be used to induce better stability and retention to the supporting structure than conventional bar. It has become convenient to use due to the development of CAD/CAM system which had allowed the simplification of dental techniques. In this case, application of conventional maxillary full denture and mandibular overdenture made of CAD/CAM milled bar with 4 implants showed satisfactory results in the patient who had used upper and lower full dentures for a long time.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.14-21
• /
• 2017

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to compare the retention of mini implant overdenture by the number, the type of magnetic attachment, and the directions of applied dislodging force. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The experimental groups were designed by the number and type of magnetic attachment. Twenty samples were tested with Magden implants. Each attachment was composed of the magnet assembly in overdenture sample and the abutment keeper in a mandibular model. Dislodging forces were applied to the overdenture samples (50.0 mm/min) in 3 directions. The loading was repeated 10 times in each direction. The values of dislodging force were analyzed statistically using SPSS at 95% level of confidence. RESULTS. The retentive force of group 2 was greater than that of group 1 in both types of attachment in every direction (P < .05). Oblique retentive force of flat type magnetic attachment was higher than that of cushion type attachment in both groups (P < .05). In group 1, oblique retentive force showed the highest and anterior-posterior retentive force showed the lowest value in both attachment types (P < .05). In group 2, both types of attachment showed the lowest retentive force with anterior-posterior direction of dislodging force (P <.05). CONCLUSION. Proper retentive properties for implant overdenture were obtained, regardless of the number and type of magnetic attachment. In both types of magnetic attachment, the greater retentive force was attained with more implants. Oblique retentive force of flat type magnetic attachment was greater than that of cushion type. Among all subgroups, anterior-posterior retentive force was the lowest among three different directions of dislodging force.

• 대한치과보철학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2001.04a
• /
• pp.61-61
• /
• 2001

• 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.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.33 no.4
• /
• pp.321-328
• /
• 2017

Treatment options for edentulous patients are complete denture and implant prosthesis. A two implant-retained overdenture can be considered the first treatment in the edentulous mandible, but there is no clear consensus of treatment for edentulous maxilla. Implant-retention/support overdenture shows better retention and stability than complete denture and is less expensive and more esthetic than implant-supported fixed prosthesis. CM $LOC^{(R)}$ $Pekkton^{(R)}$ attachment is a solitary type attachment and evaluated to have excellent abrasion resistance and retention with a female part made of poly-ether-ketone-ketone. Meanwhile, SR Ivocap system is injection molding method and discussed to show few changes in the vertical dimension of denture and have excellent fracture resistance. In this case, we restored maxillary arch with a four implant-retained overdenture using CM $LOC^{(R)}$ $Pekkton^{(R)}$ and SR Ivocap system, and mandibular arch with a removable partial denture. Through this procedure, satisfactory outcomes were achieved both in functional and esthetic aspects.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.57 no.3
• /
• pp.271-279
• /
• 2019

There are several unfavorable conditions regarding alveolar bone condition that may compromise the denture patient's satisfaction. Chewing efficiency may not be satisfactory when alveolar bone is deficient, and the denture stability could hardly be achieved when alveolar bone shape is irregular. Implant overdenture can be useful to provide satisfactory denture experience compared to conventional denture. The attachment for implant overdenture can be classified into bar attachment and solitary attachment. When the positions of the implants are in the mandibular anterior region, bar attachment may be favorable to obtain a rigid support of the entire denture. When implants are distributed both on anterior and posterior region, a solitary attachment could be considered for ease of removal and maintenance. This report presents implant overdenture cases with the patients that had unilateral mandibular alveolar bone atrophy conditions. Different abutments were chosen based on the individual patient's mandibular alveolar bone condition and the treatments were successful in terms of patient satisfaction.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.55-64
• /
• 2021

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.