• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.9 no.3
• /
• pp.143-151
• /
• 2017

PURPOSE. The design of the attachment must provide an optimum stress distribution around the implant. In this study, for implant overdentures with a bar/clip attachment or a locator attachment, the stress transmitted to the implant in accordance with the change in the denture base length and the vertical pressure was measured and analyzed. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Test model was created with epoxy resin. The strain gauges made a tight contact with implant surfaces. A universal testing machine was used to exert a vertical pressure on the mandibular implant overdenture and the strain rate of the implants was measured. RESULTS. Means and standard deviations of the maximum micro-deformation rates were determined. 1) Locator attachment: The implants on the working side generally showed higher strain than those on the non-working side. Tensile force was observed on the mesial surface of the implant on the working side, and the compressive force was applied to the buccal surface and on the surfaces of the implant on the non-working side. 2) Bar/clip attachment: The implants on the both non-working and working sides showed high strain; all surfaces except the mesial surface of the implant on the non-working side showed a compressive force. CONCLUSION. To minimize the strain on implants in mandibular implant overdentures, the attachment of the implant should be carefully selected and the denture base should be extended as much as possible.

• 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.57 no.4
• /
• pp.364-373
• /
• 2019

Unlike class I patients, skeletal class II patients have unstable occlusion thus leading to instability of mandibular complete denture. Therefore, mandibular implant overdenture has been the standard of care due to its advantages in stability and retention. The types of attachments can be divided into two categories: solitary and bar type. The indications vary between two categories. In this clinical report, digital technology was utilized from the implant planning to the choice of appropriate attachment. Implants were placed at the desired location as previously planned in terms of angle and depth. Maxillary removable partial denture and mandibular implant overdenture are expected to have fair prognosis.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.54 no.1
• /
• pp.39-48
• /
• 2016

SFI-bar is prefabricated bar system and can be assembled at chairside without soldering or welding, thus reducing bone loss, costs and time. A 53-year-old male patient, who had severely absorbed mandible, hoped to wear a stable mandiblular denture. Four implants were placed in the extraction site of canine and 1st molar. Early loaded temporary denture with solitary type attachment was delivered 3 weeks after surgery. 3 month later, SFI-bar was connected and adjusted at chairside. Then, implant overdenture using SFI-bar was delivered. This case report showed that a satisfactory clinical result was achieved by 4-implant-supported overdenture using the SFI-Bar system in a mandibular edentulous patient.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.58 no.4
• /
• pp.335-341
• /
• 2020

Severe mandibular bone resorption may cause difficulties in using a complete denture. An implant overdenture is a feasible and economical treatment option as it can improve retention, stability, and support. A Locator attachment has used successfully. Recently, the next generation of the Locator attachment launched. The purpose of this article is to describe the fabrication of an implant overdenture with a Locator R-Tx attachment as well as its features.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.397-406
• /
• 2012

Loss of tooth results in remodeling and resorption of surrounding alveolar bone which causes atrophic edentulous ridge and gradually decreasing gingival attachment. As a result, edentulous patients face difficulty in using dentures due to pain, decrease of support, decline of masticatory efficiency of complete denture. To improve this, overdenture with implant in the mandible and attachment are considered as a treatment of choice as a favorable treatment. In this case, a patient with edentulous ridge for long period is rehabilitated by complete denture in maxilla and implant overdenture using Locator$^{(R)}$ attachment in mandible.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.313-320
• /
• 2016

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical findings and patient satisfaction on implant overdenture designed with Locator implant attachment or Locator bar attachment in mandibular edentulous patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, probing depth, peri-implant inflammation, bleeding, plaque, calculus, complications, and satisfaction were evaluated on sixteen patients who were treated with mandibular overdenture and have used it for at least 1 year (Locator implant attachment: n=8, Locator bar attachment: n=8). RESULTS. Marginal bone loss, probing depth, plaque index of the Locator bar attachment group were significantly lower than the Locator implant attachment group (P<.05). There was no significant difference on bleeding, peri-implant inflammation, and patient satisfaction between the two denture types (P>.05). The replacement of the attachment components was the most common complication in both groups. Although there was no correlation between marginal bone loss and plaque index, a significant correlation was found between marginal bone loss and probing depth. CONCLUSION. The Locator bar attachment group indicates lesser marginal bone loss and need for maintenance, as compared with the Locator implant attachment group. This may be due to the splinting effect among implants rather than the types of Locator attachment.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.38 no.3
• /
• pp.360-365
• /
• 2000

The completely edentulous patient has few treatment options in conventional dentistry. When implants are considered, treatment plans range from a 2-implant overdenture to a completely implant-supported prosthesis. Fixed prosthesis is often the preferred selection of the edentulous patient. fixed full-arch cert amo-metal restorations can be a predictable implant treatment modality for the edentulous patient. Implant-supported fixed prosthesis has several advantages: predictability, fixedness, retrievability, improved function, lower maintenance of prosthesis, long-term published success. Edentulous patients with a severely resorbed mandible often experience problems with their dentures. Treatment concepts involving two to four implants for the support of an overdenture have been proposed. There seems to be no need to insert more than two endosteal implants to support an overdenture, however, long-term prospective studies are needed to support this notion. Using short endosseous implants and an overdenture in the extremely resorbed mandible is a justified treatment option because of the relative simplicity and low morbidity of this treatment strategy. Implant-supported overdenture has several advantages: Cost, retrievability, hygiene access, profile and contour control, increased retention and stability, implant installed in a predicted region(ant. mandible).

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.176-183
• /
• 2014

Severely absorbed edentulous ridge cannot bear mechanical stress, causes undesired transformation of oral environment and makes patients difficult to adapt to dentures. Nowadays implant overdenture can be a treatment of choice in order to relieve patients' discomfort and improve stability and retention of the denture. Placement of implant on maxilla is difficult because of its bone quality and anatomic structure. It also has wide supportive tissue and convenience of border sealing, which provides sufficient support and stabilization with conventional complete denture. Mandible, on the other hand, is difficult to obtain sufficient support, retention and stabilization with conventional complete denture. Therefore, implant overdenture is recommended on mandible. Locator attachment has been improved for convenience of use and male parts of various retention enabled it to replace ball type attachment clinically. In this study, we restored maxillary arch with conventional denture, and mandibular arch with implant and tissue-supported overdenture and Locator attachment system.

• Implantology
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.146-152
• /
• 2015

Mini-dental implants for overdenture applications are increasingly popular due to their ease in placement with simplified, less traumatic surgical protocols in limited-width alveolar ridges. However, the clinical decisions including implant number, position, and loading protocol must be based on a thorough evaluation and evidence-based diagnosis. Herein, we reported a case treated with the current method of mandibular mini-implant supported overdenture.