• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.5 no.3
• /
• pp.333-340
• /
• 2013

PURPOSE. This study was accomplished to assess the biomechanical state of different retaining methods of bar implant-overdenture. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Two 3D finite element models were designed. The first model included implant overdenture retained by Hader-clip attachment, while the second model included two extracoronal resilient attachment (ERA) studs added distally to Hader splint bar. A non-linear frictional contact type was assumed between overdentures and mucosa to represent sliding and rotational movements among different attachment components. A 200 N was applied at the molar region unilaterally and perpendicular to the occlusal plane. Additionally, the mandible was restrained at their ramus ends. The maximum equivalent stress and strain (von Mises) were recorded and analyzed at the bone-implant interface level. RESULTS. The values of von Mises stress and strain of the first model at bone-implant interface were higher than their counterparts of the second model. Stress concentration and high value of strain were recognized surrounding implant of the unloaded side in both models. CONCLUSION. There were different patterns of stress-strain distribution at bone-implant interface between the studied attachment designs. Hader bar-clip attachment showed better biomechanical behavior than adding ERA studs distal to hader bar.

• 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.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.12 no.1
• /
• pp.33-37
• /
• 2020

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of type of magnet attachment and implant angulation in two implant overdenture models. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Magnet attachments used in this study were flat and dome types (MGT5515, MGT5520D, Dentium Co., Seoul, Korea). Two implants with keepers were inserted in the resin blocks at a distance of 24 mm. For the first model, the implants were parallel to the vertical and perpendicular to the horizontal; for the second model, both were angulated 5 degrees to the mesial; for the third model, both were angulated 10 degrees toward the mesial. The retentive force was measured in both vertical and lateral directions. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software version 22.0 (α=.05). RESULTS. The flat type magnet attachment showed the highest lateral retentive force in the 20° divergent group (P<.05) and the dome type magnet attachment showed the highest lateral retentive force in the parallel group (P<.05). The vertical and lateral retentive force of the dome type magnet attachment was greater than that of the flat type magnet attachment in every direction (P<.05). CONCLUSION. Within the limitations of this study, the dome shape magnet attachment can resist vertical and lateral retentive force more superiorly than the flat type magnet attachment, regardless of angle, in the mandibular two implant model.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.9 no.5
• /
• pp.371-380
• /
• 2017

PURPOSE. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the stress distribution in Locator attachments in mandibular two-implant overdentures according to implant locations and different loading conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Four three-dimensional finite element models were created, simulating two osseointegrated implants in the mandible to support two Locator attachments and an overdenture. The models simulated an overdenture with implants located in the position of the level of lateral incisors, canines, second premolars, and crossed implant. A 150 N vertical unilateral and bilateral load was applied at different locations and 40 N was also applied when combined with anterior load at the midline. Data for von Mises stresses in the abutment (matrix) of the attachment and the plastic insert (patrix) of the attachment were produced numerically, color-coded, and compared between the models for attachments and loading conditions. RESULTS. Regardless of the load, the greatest stress values were recorded in the overdenture attachments with implants at lateral incisor locations. In all models and load conditions, the attachment abutment (matrix) withstood a much greater stress than the insert plastic (patrix). Regardless of the model, when a unilateral load was applied, the load side Locator attachments recorded a much higher stress compared to the contralateral side. However, with load bilateral posterior alone or combined at midline load, the stress distribution was more symmetrical. The stress is distributed primarily in the occlusal and lateral surface of the insert plastic patrix and threadless area of the abutment (matrix). CONCLUSION. The overdenture model with lateral incisor level implants is the worst design in terms of biomechanical environment for the attachment components. The bilateral load in general favors a more uniform stress distribution in both attachments compared to a much greater stress registered with unilateral load in the load side attachments. Regardless of the implant positions and the occlusal load application site, the stress transferred to the insert plastic is much lower than that registered in the abutment.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.31-69
• /
• 1996

The purpose of this investigation was to analyze stress distribution in implant supporting tissue according to different types of attachments such as combination bar attachment, Hader bar attachment, O-Ring attachment and Dal-Ro attachment that are used in mandibular overdenture by using two osseointegrated implants, to study the influence that POM IMC used in bar type attachment has in implant supporting tissue and compare the preceding analyses to find out an effective stress distribution method. Three dimensional photoelastic method was used to obtain the following results. (A) Analysis of stress distribution according to attachment type 1. Under vertical load condition, compressive stress was seen at implant supporting area of working side on all the photoelastic models but in Hader bar attachment tensional stress was seen at distal upper area of implant supporting area. Relatively Hader bar and O-Ring attachment showed even stress distribution pattern. 2. Under vertical load condition, compressive stress at implant apex area and tensional stress at implant lateral supporting area were seen at nonworking side of all models. 3. Under $25^{\circ}$ lateral load condition, general compressive stress was seen at working side implant supporting area in most of the models, especially at distal upper supporting area higher compressive stress concentration was seen in combination bar attachment and tensional stress concentration, in Hader bar attachment. 4. Under $25^{\circ}$ lateral load condition, compressive stress at implant apex area and tensional stress at implant lateral supporting area were seen at nonworking side of all models, except O-Ring model which showed compressive stress only. (B) Influence of POM IMC to stress distribution in bar type attachment 5. Under vertical load condition, better stress distribution pattern was seen at working side of combination bar and Hader bar attachment model using POM IMC. 6. Under vertical load condition, stress value was increased at nonworking side of combination bar attachment model using POM IMC and tendency of increasing compression was seen at nonworking side of Hader bar attachment model using POM IMC. 7. Under $25^{\circ}$ lateral load condition, better stress distribution pattern was seen at working side of combination bar attachment model using POM IMC but tendency of increasing stress was seen on working side of Hader bar attachment model using POM IMC. 8. Under $25^{\circ}$ lateral load condition, stress reduction was seen at nonworking side of combination bar attachment model using POM IMC but tendency of increasing stress was seen at nonworking side of Hader bar attachment model using POM IMC.

• 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.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.169-181
• /
• 2008

The aim of this study was to compare the retention and stability of implant overdenture according to the shape and the number of magnetic attachment. The experimental groups were designed for the number of implants(1, 2, 4) and shape of magnetic attachments(flat, cushion, dome type) resulting in 9 subgroups. 45 attachments were tested attached to $Br{\aa}nemark$ system implants which were planted on a mandibular model. Each attachment was composed of the magnet assembly embedded in a overdenture sample and the abutment keeper screwed into the implants. Dislodging tensile forces were applied to the overdenture samples using an Instron(cross-head speed 50.80mm/min) in 3 directions simulating function: vertical, oblique, and anterior-posterior. The loading was repeated 10 times in each direction for 45 samples. The values of maximum dislodging force of each subgroup were processed statistically using SPSS V. 12.0 at the 0.05 level of significance. The results of this study were as follows: 1. Flat type magnetic overdenture was the most retentive when subjected to vertically directed forces and dome type was the lest retentive when subjected to obliquely directed forces(p<0.05). 2. In case of planting one implant, flat type had a higher vertically retentive force than anterior-posteriorly retentive force. In case of planting two implants, flat type and dome type had a higher vertically retentive force and in case of planting four implants, flat type and cushion type had a higher vertically retentive force than anterior-posteriorly retentive force(p<0.05). 3. The incremental number of dental implant, without regards to the three types of magnetic attachment shapes, showed higher retention of overdenture(p<0.05). From the results, if a patient need much more retention of implant overdenture, flat type magnetic overdenture would be a good treatment. In case of the bruxism where excessive lateral forces are already present, dome type could be expected to produce better results. In case of planting one implant, flat type is more stable than the other shape of magnet and in case of two implant, flat type and dome type are more stable and in case of four implants, flat type and cushion type are more stable. Planting more than two implants and using flat type magnetic attachment would provide better retention and stability of implant overdenture

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.327-353
• /
• 1994

This study was performed to evaluate the effects of number and alignment of implant fixture and various bar designs on the retention of denture and the stress distribution. Six kinds of photoelastic mandibular models and nine kinds of overdenture specimens were designed. A unilateral vertical load was gradually applied on the right first molar to calculate the maximal dislodgement load of each specimen. A unilateral vertical load of 17 Kgf was applied on the right first molar and a vertical load of 10 Kgf was applied on the interincisal edge region. The stress pattern which developed in each photoelastic model was analyzed by the reflection polariscope. The results obtained were as follows: 1. The maximal dislodgement load reversely increased with the distance from the loading point to the implant fixture, while it linearly increased with that from the most posterior implant fixture to the mesial clip. The maximal dislodgement load also increased with the use of a cantilever bar. 2. Under the posterior vertical load, the stress to the supporting tissue of the denture base increased with the distance from the loading point to the implant future. The stress concentration on the apical area of the implant future reversely increased with the distance from the loading point to the implant future. 3. In the overdentures supported by two implant fixtures under the posterior vertical load. the specimen implanted on lateral incisor areas with a cantilever bar exhibited more favorable stress distribution than that without a cantilever bar. The specimen implanted on the canine areas without a cantilever bar, however, exhibited more favorable stress distribution. 4. In the overdentures supported by three implant fixtures. the specimen implanted ell the midline and canine areas exhibited more favorable stress distribution than that implanted oil the midline and the first premolar areas. 5. In the overdentures supported by four implant fixtures. the specimen implanted with two adjacent implant fixtures exhibited more favorable stress distribution than that implanted at equal distance under the posterior vertical load. 6. Under the anterior vertical load, the overdentures supported by three implant fixtures exhibited stress concentration on the supporting structure of the middle implant future. In overdentures supported by two or four implant futures, no significant difference was noted in stress distribution between the types of bars. These results indicate that the greater the number of implant fixtures, the better the stress distribution is. A favorable stress distribution may be obtained in the overdentures supported by two or three implant fixtures, if the location and the design of the bar are appropriate.

• 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).