• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.52 no.4
• /
• pp.331-337
• /
• 2014

In conventional bar- and clip-retained overdentures, all errors during impression making and cast fabrication result in non-passive fit of bars. SFI bar is prefabricated and assembled in the patient's mouth without the use of soldering, laser welding or conventional bonding techniques, thus reducing stress transmission to, bone loss around the implants and leading to fewer errors and lower costs. A clinical case will be presented below to demonstrate the use of the SFI Bar (Stress Free on Implant Bar) to restore an severe atrophy edentulous maxilla. In this case, no lateral stress could be applied to the implants due to the telescopic design of the bar joints. However, periodic recall check is necessary and long-term clinical results are required.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.50 no.1
• /
• pp.10-20
• /
• 2012

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the stress distribution in mandibular implant-supported overdentures and tooth-supported overdentures with telescopic crowns. Materials and methods: The assumption of this study was that there were 2, 3, 4 natural teeth and implants which are located in the second premolar and canine regions in various distributed conditions. The mandible, teeth (or implants and abutments), and connectors are modeled, and analyzed with the commercial software, ANSYS Version 10.1. Stress distribution was evaluated under 150 N vertical load bilaterally on 3 experimental conditions - between canine areas, canine and $2^{nd}$ premolars, 10 mm posterior to $2^{nd}$ premolars. Results: Overall, the case of the implant group showed more stress than the case of the teeth group in stress distribution to bone. In stress distribution to superstructures of tooth and implants, there was no significant difference between TH group and IM group and the highest stress appeared in TH-IV and IM-IV. The stress caused from bar was much higher than those of implant and tooth. TH group showed less stress than IM group in stress distribution to abutment teeth and implant. Conclusion: The results shows that it is crucial to make sure that distance between impact loading point and abutment tooth does not get too far apart, and if it does, it is at best to set abutment tooth on premolar tooth region. It will be necessary to conduct more experiments on effects on implants, natural teeth and bone, in order to apply these results to a clinical treatment.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.56 no.4
• /
• pp.338-346
• /
• 2018

Crossed occlusion can be treated either by overdenture and telescopic denture or by placing an implant at the edentulous area to reestablish the support on the occlusion. If alveolar bony support is sufficient and an the environment where an implant is inserted is favorable to restoring the masticatory and aesthetic function of a patient, the implant-supported fixed prosthesis can provide more definitive occlusal support and more aid for other oral functions. In this case report, a patient with a severe residual alveolar bone resorption following the extraction of teeth and who had a crossed occlusion was treated with sinus bone graft and alveolar bone augmentation in order to place the implants at prosthetically position. The definitive restoration was made to reflect the patient's occlusal and aesthetic function using the CAD/CAM double scanning method. Finally, the treatment had the masticatory and aesthetic function adequately restored, which is reported here.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.48 no.1
• /
• pp.28-40
• /
• 2010

Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to provide long-term data about the correlation between multifactorial local factors and the survival of implants. Material and methods: During 19 years (1991 to 2009), 2796 implants were placed in 879 patients. From dental charts and radiographs, the following data were collected: patient's age at implant placement, gender, implant system, surface, length, diameter, location of implant placement, bone quality, primary stability, type of prosthesis. The correlations between these data and implant survival were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, Chi-square test, odds ratio. Results: 1. Among the 2796 implants, 150 implants failed that resulted in a cumulative survival rate of 94.64%. The cumulative survival rate of smooth surface implants (91.76%) was lower than rough surface implants (96.02%). 2. Anatomic location, implant surface, diameter of smooth surface implant, primary stability, type of prosthesis, patient's age and gender were significantly associated with implant survival (P < .05). 3. No significant difference in implant survival was found in relation to the following factors: implant length, bone quality, diameter of rough surface implants and type of rough surface according to implant manufacturer (P < .05). Conclusions: Local factors such as anatomic location, implant surface, diameter of smooth surface implant, primary stability and type of prosthesis have a significant effect on implant survival.