• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.25 no.1 s.212
• /
• pp.8-9
• /
• 1987

• 대한치과보철학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 1999.04a
• /
• pp.36-40
• /
• 1999

• 대한치과보철학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2006.04a
• /
• pp.28-28
• /
• 2006

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.74-76
• /
• 2017

Although many prosthetic materials exist for fabrication of implant-supported telescopic overdentures, available materials have not been thoroughly evaluated from a functional standpoint. This case report describes the use of polyaryletherketone (PAEK) based polymer for an implant-supported telescopic overdenture, a seldom used material in dentistry. This material is lighter than traditional materials, can accommodate changes in retentive forces, and is an easily retrievable by CAD/CAM fabrication. This case highlights the possibility of using new polymer materials for implant-supported telescopic overdentures.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.116-124
• /
• 2016

PURPOSE. The aim of the present study was to evaluate, by means of strain gauge analysis, the effect of different implant angulations on strains around two implants retaining mandibular overdenture with Locator attachments. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Four duplicate mandibular acrylic models were constructed. Two implants were inserted in the canine regions using the following degrees of distal inclinations: group I (control); $0^{\circ}$, group II; $10^{\circ}$, group III; $20^{\circ}$, and group IV; $30^{\circ}$. Locator pink attachments were used to connect the overdenture to the implants and Locator red (designed for severely angled implants) was used for group IV (group $IV_{red}$). For each group, two linear strain gauges were attached at the mesial and distal surfaces of the acrylic resin around each implant. Peri-implant strain was measured on loading and non-loading sides during bilateral and unilateral loading. RESULTS. For all groups, the mesial surfaces of the implants at loading and non-loading sides experienced compressive (negative) strains, while the distal implant surfaces showed tensile (positive) strains. Group IV showed the highest strain, followed by group III, group II. Both group I and group $IV_{red}$ showed the lowest strain. The strain gauges at the mesial surface of the loading side recorded the highest strain, and the distal surface at non-loading side showed the lowest strain. Unilateral loading recorded significantly higher strain than bilateral loading. CONCLUSION. Peri-implant strains around two implants used to retain mandibular overdentures with Locator attachments increase as distal implant inclination increases, except when red nylon inserts were used.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.6 no.5
• /
• pp.325-332
• /
• 2014

PURPOSE. The aim of this review was to analyze the evaluation criteria on mandibular implant overdentures through a systematic review and suggest standardized evaluation criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A systematic literature search was conducted by PubMed search strategy and hand-searching of relevant journals from included studies considering inclusion and exclusion criteria. Randomized clinical trials (RCT) and clinical trial studies comparing attachment systems on mandibular implant overdentures until December, 2011 were selected. Twenty nine studies were finally selected and the data about evaluation methods were collected. RESULTS. Evaluation criteria could be classified into 4 groups (implant survival, peri-implant tissue evaluation, prosthetic evaluation, and patient satisfaction). Among 29 studies, 21 studies presented implant survival rate, while any studies reporting implant failure did not present cumulative implant survival rate. Seventeen studies evaluating peri-implant tissue status presented following items as evaluation criteria; marginal bone level (14), plaque Index (13), probing depth (8), bleeding index (8), attachment gingiva level (8), gingival index (6), amount of keratinized gingiva (1). Eighteen studies evaluating prosthetic maintenance and complication also presented following items as evaluation criteria; loose matrix (17), female detachment (15), denture fracture (15), denture relining (14), abutment fracture (14), abutment screw loosening (11), and occlusal adjustment (9). Atypical questionnaire (9), Visual analog scales (VAS) (4), and Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) (1) were used as the format of criteria to evaluate patients satisfaction in 14 studies. CONCLUSION. For evaluation of implant overdenture, it is necessary to include cumulative survival rate for implant evaluation. It is suggested that peri-implant tissue evaluation criteria include marginal bone level, plaque index, bleeding index, probing depth, and attached gingiva level. It is also suggested that prosthetic evaluation criteria include loose matrix, female detachment, denture fracture, denture relining, abutment fracture, abutment screw loosening, and occlusal adjustment. Finally standardized criteria like OHIP-EDENT or VAS are required for patient satisfaction.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.54 no.12
• /
• pp.1024-1034
• /
• 2016

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to compare the type and frequency of prosthetic complications associated with attachment types for implant overdenture. Material and methods. In this retrospective study, 38 patients (mean age, 63.5 years) have been treated with implant overdentures from 2007 to 2014. Ten patients received a bar-clip attachment. Eleven patients had received a milled bar with Locator attachment. Seventeen patients had received a Locator attachment. The mean follow-up period was 36.9 months (range, 15-83 months). The type and frequency of prosthetic complications was recorded. The frequency was analyzed to determine the statistical difference among the 3 different attachments by using one-way ANOVA (${\alpha}=.05$) and Bonferroni post hoc method at a 5% level of significance. Results. The total number of prosthetic complications was higher in the bar-clip attachment (55 events) than in the milled bar with Locator attachment (39 events) and the Locator attachment (34 events). There were no statistically significant differences, and the most common prosthetic complication was the loss of retention. In the bar-clip attachment group, the average frequency of prosthetic complications was 3.0 events per prosthesis during the first year. In the milled bar with Locator attachment and Locator attachment groups, the average frequencies were 1.45 events and 2.35 events, respectively. Statistically significant differences were observed in the frequency of the complication. (p = .043) Conclusions. Compared to the bar-clip attachment, implant overdentures that use milled bars with the Locator attachment have a significantly lower incidence of prosthetic complications in the first year of follow-up after placement.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.7 no.4
• /
• pp.338-342
• /
• 2015

PURPOSE. This retrospective study evaluated the outcome of implant-retained overdentures (IODs) after 5-19 years of clinical function. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A retrospective analysis of patient files was performed referring to 27 patients who received 36 IODs with 3 different bar designs (group A=prefabricated round bars, n=7; group B=one-piece anterior milled bars, n=20; and group C=two bilaterally placed milled bars, n=9) in the mandible (n=24) and/or in the maxilla (n=12). The analysis focused on the survival and success rates (according to Kaplan-Meier) of the implants and prostheses. Technical complication rates for each type of restoration were analyzed and compared via one-way ANOVA and the Chi-squared test. The prevalence of peri-implantitis (radiographic bone loss ${\geq}3.5mm$) was evaluated by digital analysis of panoramic radiographs taken postoperative (baseline) and after 5-19 years of clinical function (follow-up). RESULTS. The mean observational time was 7.3 years. The survival rates of the prostheses and implants were 100% and 97.7%, respectively. Technical complications occurred more frequently in group A (mean: 3.5 during observational time) than in the other two groups (B: 0.8; C: 1.0). However, this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.58). Peri-implantitis was diagnosed for 12.4% of the implants in 37% of the patients. CONCLUSION. Bar-retained IODs are an adequate treatment option for edentulous jaws. These restorations may exhibit high implant/prosthesis survival rates (>97%), and a limited incidence of technical complications after a mean observational period of >7 years. Nevertheless, peri-implantitis was identified as a frequent and serious biological complication for this type of reconstruction.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.53 no.3
• /
• pp.194-206
• /
• 2023

Purpose: A novel attachment system for implant-retained overdentures (IRODs) with novel material combinations for improved mechanical resilience and prosthodontic success (Novaloc) has been recently introduced as an alternative to an existing system (Locator). This study investigated whether differences between the Novaloc and Locator attachment systems translate into differences in implant survival, implant success, and patient-centered outcomes when applied in a real-world in-practice comparative setting in patients restored with mandibular IRODs supported by 2 interforaminal implants (2-IRODs). Methods: This prospective, intra-subject crossover comparison compared 20 patients who received 2 intra-foraminal bone level tapered implants restored with full acrylic overdentures using either the Locator or Novaloc attachment system. After 6 months of function, the attachment in the corresponding dentures was switched, and the definitive attachment system type was delivered based on the patient's preference after 12 months. For the definitive attachment system, implant survival was evaluated after 24 months. The primary outcomes of this study were oral health-related quality of life and patient preferences related to prosthetic and implant survival. Secondary outcomes included implant survival rate and success, prosthetic survival, perceived general health, and patient satisfaction. Results: Patient-centered outcomes and patient preferences between attachment systems were comparable, with relatively high overall patient satisfaction levels for both attachment systems. No difference in the prosthetic survival rate between study groups was detected. The implant survival rate over the follow-up period after 24 months in both groups was 100%. Conclusions: The results of this in-practice comparison indicate that both attachment systems represent comparable candidates for the prosthodontic retention of 2-IRODs. Both systems showed high rates of patient satisfaction and implant survival. The influence of material combinations of the retentive system on treatment outcomes between the tested systems remains inconclusive and requires further investigations.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.47 no.2
• /
• pp.222-231
• /
• 2009

Statements of the problem: Over the past decades, conventional complete dentures were used for various patients although they have incomplete function. Overdentures using dental implants could help the improvement of denture function. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the strains of abutment and bone on implant overdenture between splinted and unsplinted type of prosthesis. Additionally, the strain values of parallel placed implant model and unparallel placed implant model were compared. Material and methods: Two acrylic resin model were prepared and two implants were placed at the canine positions in each model. In the first model, two implant were placed parallel. In the second model, two implants were placed with 10 degree labiolingual divergence. Two types of abutment were connected to the fixtures alternatively. One was splint type of Hader bar, the other was unsplint type of ball abutment. Overdentures were fabricated with corresponding attachment systems and seated on abutments. Strains of abutments and labial bone simulants were measured with electric resistance strain gauges when static load from 100 N to 200 N were applied to overdentures. Results: 1. Splinted type of overdentures using bar and clip showed higher absolute strain values. But the strain was compressive and the load was shared by two implants(P<.05). 2. Unsplinted type overdentures using ball and O-ring showed low absolute strain values(P<.05). 3. Labially inclined implant showed higher tensile strain values in unsplinted type of prosthesis than in splinted type of prosthesis. Lingually inclined implant showed rather low strain values under load(P<.05). 4. Non parallel implant model showed higher absolute strain values than parallel placed implant model comprehensively(P<.05).