• Journal of Korean Dental Science
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.152-161
• /
• 2022

Mandibular implant overdenture is a good treatment option for complete edentulous patients with restoring removable prosthesis. Mandibular implant overdenture with two implants and locator attachments is widely used. It is tissue-supported overdenture that is made with the concept of conventional complete denture fabrication. There are two patients who provided impressions by open mouth technique and closed mouth technique in each case. In both cases, mandibular implant overdentures were restored with functionally and aesthetically satisfying results.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.45 no.5
• /
• pp.633-643
• /
• 2007

Statement of problem: Recently there are on an increasing trend of using implants-especially in edentulous mandible of severly alveolar bone recessed. Purpose: The aim of this study was to analyze the displacement and stress distribution of various mandibular implant-retained overdenture models supported by two implants in interforaminal region under the occlusion scheme load. Material and method: FEA models were made by the 3D scanning of the edentulous mandibular dentiform. The three models were named as Model M1, M2, and M3 accord ing to the position of implants: M1, Lt. incisor area, M2, Canine area, and M3, 1st Premolar area. Inter-implant angulation model was named as M4. Conventional complete denture was named M5 and used as a control group. Ball implant and Gold matrice were used as a retentive anchors. The occlusion type loads were applied horizontally over each tooth. Results: 1. In mandibular implant retained overdenture Canine Protected Occlusion type load resulted in higher levels of stress to the implants and female matrices than other types of loads. 2. The overdenture model M1, with implants in lateral incisor areas resulted in lower stress concentration to the implants and female matrices than other models. 3. In mandibular implant retained overdenture the stresses of the implant and female matrice were lower in mesially inclined implant than these of parallel installed implant. Conclusion: Lateral incisor areas could be the best site for the implants in mandibular implant-retained overdenture. The mandibular implant retained overdenture models mentioned above showed to the lowest stress to the implants and female matrices.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.46 no.4
• /
• pp.359-371
• /
• 2008

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the stress distribution in mandibular implant overdentures with telescopic crowns compared to bar attachment. Material and methods: Three-dimensional finite element models consisting of the mandibular bone, 4 implants, and primary bar-splinted superstructure or secondary splinted superstructure with telescopic crowns were created. Vertical and oblique loads were directed onto the occlusal areas of the superstructures to simulate the maximal intercuspal contacts and working contacts such as group function occlusion. Maximum stress and stress distribution were analysed in mandibular bone, implant abutments, and superstructures. Results: 1. In comparison of von Mises stress on mandibular bone, telescopic overdenture had a little lower stress values in vertical load and working side load except oblique load. In the mandible, the telescopic overdenture distributed more uniform stress than the bar overdenture. 2. In comparison of von Mises stress on implant abutments, telescopic overdenture had much lower stress values in all load conditions. In implant abutments, the telescopic overdenture distributed stress similar to the bar overdenture. Stress was concentrated on the distal surfaces of the posterior implant abutments in both mandibular overdentures. 3. In comparison of von Mises stress on superstructures, the telescopic overdenture had much more stress values in all load conditions. However, the telescopic overdenture distributed more uniform stress on superstructure than the bar overdenture. In the bar overdenture, stress was concentrated on each cental area of bar structures and connected area between implant abutments and bar structures. Conclusion: In the results of this study, the telescopic overdenture had lower stress values than the bar overdenture in mandibular bone and implant abutments, but more stress values in superstructures. However, if optimal material was selected in making superstructures, the telescopic overdenture was compared to the bar overdenture in stress distribution.

• 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.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.6 no.4
• /
• pp.245-252
• /
• 2014

PURPOSE. To present a literature review on implant overdentures after a brief survey of bone loss after extraction of all teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Papers on alveolar bone loss and implant overdentures have been studied for a narrative review. RESULTS. Bone loss of the alveolar process after tooth extraction occurs with great individual variation, impossible to predict at the time of extraction. The simplest way to prevent bone loss is to avoid extraction of all teeth. To keep a few teeth and use them or their roots for a tooth or root-supported overdenture substantially reduces bone loss. Jaws with implant-supported prostheses show less bone loss than jaws with conventional dentures. Mandibular 2-implant overdentures provide patients with better outcomes than do conventional dentures, regarding satisfaction, chewing ability and oral-health-related quality of life. There is no strong evidence for the superiority of one overdenture retention-system over the others regarding patient satisfaction, survival, peri-implant bone loss and relevant clinical factors. Mandibular single midline implant overdentures have shown promising results but long-term results are not yet available. For a maxillary overdenture 4 to 6 implants splinted with a bar provide high survival both for implants and overdenture. CONCLUSION. In edentulous mandibles, 2-implant overdentures provide excellent long-term success and survival, including patient satisfaction and improved oral functions. To further reduce the costs a single midline implant overdenture can be a promising option. In the maxilla, overdentures supported on 4 to 6 implants splinted with a bar have demonstrated good functional results.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.4 no.4
• /
• pp.254-258
• /
• 2012

Implant-supported overdenture is a reliable treatment option for the patients with edentulous mandible when they have difficulty in using complete dentures. Several options have been used for implant-supported overdenture attachments. Among these, bar attachment system has greater retention and better maintainability than others. SFI-Bar$^{(R)}$ is prefabricated and can be adjustable at chairside. Therefore, laboratory procedures such as soldering and welding are unnecessary, which leads to fewer errors and lower costs. A 67-year-old female patient presented, complaining of mobility of lower anterior teeth with old denture. She had been wearing complete denture in the maxilla and removable partial denture in the mandible with severe bone loss. After extracting the teeth, two implants were placed in front of mental foramen, and SFI-Bar$^{(R)}$ was connected. A tube bar was seated to two adapters through large ball joints and fixation screws, connecting each implant. The length of the tube bar was adjusted according to inter-implant distance. Then, a female part was attached to the bar beneath the new denture. This clinical report describes two-implant-supported overdenture using the SFI-Bar$^{(R)}$ system in a mandibular edentulous patient.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.242-252
• /
• 2015

Implant overdenture treatment using several solitary attachment systems on mandibular edentulous patients. Most patients with severe residual ridge resorption report significantly more problems adapting to their mandibular denture due to a lack of comfort, retention, stability and to the inability to chew and eat. Recent scientific studies carried out over the past decade have determined that the benefits of a mandibular implant overdenture are sufficient to get retention and stability. Therefore, overdenture with implants on the mandible and attachments are considered as a treatment of choice as a favorable treatment. In this cases, with consideration for jaw relation, level of bone loss, facial support and economic factor, edentulous patients with severe residual ridge resorption are rehabilitated by complete denture on maxilla and two-implants overdenture using several solitary attachment systems on mandible.

• 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 Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.60 no.4
• /
• pp.339-346
• /
• 2022

Compared with traditional full dentures, mandibular implant overdentures have the advantage in that good support and retention can be obtained even with two implants. When manufacturing a mandibular implant overdenture using two implants, it is important to place the implant in the correct position. The long-term prognosis of overdenture is good when two implants are placed in the direction vertical to the occlusal plane and parallel to each other at the canine position. However, it is difficult to place two implants in the correct position in edentulous patients, and if you use surgical guides in these cases, you can get help in placing the implants in a prosthetically advantageous position. This case, a 57-year-old male patient, came to our hospital with all upper and lower teeth removed due to periodontal disease. Therefore, the maxilla was restored with a traditional full denture and the mandible was restored with an implant overdenture using two implants, which resulted in satisfactory functional and esthetic results.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.7 no.3
• /
• pp.191-198
• /
• 2015

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to compare the coronal bone level and patient satisfaction in 1-implant and 2-implant assisted mandibular overdentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Twenty patients who had maladaptive mandibular dentures were treated in this study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups. The first group received 1 implant (Simple line II, Implantium, South Korea) in their mandibular midline and the second group received 2 implants in their B and D regions (according to Misch's category). If the primary stability of each implant was at least 60 ISQ, ball attachment was placed and denture relined with soft liner. After 6 weeks, retentive cap incorporated with hard acrylic resin. In the 6 and 12 months recalls, periapical digital radiograph were made and visual analogue scale questionnaires were used to record patient satisfaction. The Friedman test was done for comparing the presurgical and postsurgical parameters in each group and the U-Mann Whitney test (P<.05) was done for comparison of post-treatment results between the two groups. RESULTS. All implants achieved sufficient primary stability to be immediately loaded. Patient satisfaction was high, and there were no significant differences between two groups (P>.05). In addition, mean marginal bone loss was $0.6{\pm}0.67$ mm in the first group and $0.6{\pm}0.51$ mm in the second group, after 12 month. Mean marginal bone loss showed no significant differences between two groups. CONCLUSION. This preliminary one-year result indicated that mandibular overdentures anchored to a single implant can be a safe and cost-effective method as a starting step for implant-overdenture treatment.