• 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 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 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.54 no.4
• /
• pp.393-400
• /
• 2016

Fixed implant prosthesis and removable implant overdenture are the main treatment options for treating edentulous maxilla with implants. If clinicians select one of the treatment options without accurate diagnosis and evaluation, this may lead to unfavorable treatment result and one would not be able to guarantee successful long term prognosis. In this case, 69 year-old female presented with failed fixed implant prosthesis that was treated in private dental clinic. Since the patient did not want additional insertion of implants and considering factors such as oral hygiene maintenance, splinting effect, and esthetics, the patient was treated with removable implant bar type overdenture using pre-existing implants. The clinical results were satisfactory in the aspect of esthetics and masticatory function, oral hygiene maintenance.

• 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 Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.4 no.2
• /
• pp.116-120
• /
• 2012

Various options have been introduced for the selection of implant overdenture attachments. Attachment wear due to the repeated insertion and removal of dentures has caused problems such as decreased retention and the requirement for suprastructure remanufacturing. In these cases, a Locator bar system was applied using the drill and tapping technique to achieve total retrievability. In a 55-year-old female patient who showed three degrees of mobility in most of her teeth due to severe alveolar bone loss, a complete denture in the maxilla and an implant supported type overdenture in the mandible were planned after extracting all the remaining teeth. Six implants were placed from canine region to the distal molar region, and the locator was connected to the milled bar using the drill and tapping technique. For a 61-year-old female edentulous patient who complained of poor retention with old denture, a complete denture in the maxilla and an implant-tissue supported type overdenture in the mandible were planned. Four implants were placed in front of mental foramen, and the Locator was also connected to the Hader bar using the drill and tapping technique. With this technique, female parts can be easily replaced, and retention can be continuously maintained.

• Journal of the Korean Academy of Esthetic Dentistry
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.104-113
• /
• 2001

This article described a procedure for fabricating an esthetic gingival porcelain restoration as an implant-supported fixed prosthesis for edentulous maxilla. Alternative treatments for fully edentulous patients include an implant-supported overdenture or a fixed implant-supported prosthesis with bilateral distal cantilevers. But, from a functional and biomechanical point of view, the fixed implant-supported prosthesis with posterior cantilevers or implant-supported tissue-borne overdenture do not significantly improve masticatory effectiveness compared with a distributed implant restoration as a fixed implant-supported prosthesis. The fact that the prosthesis is supported by distributed implants over eight for edentulous maxilla in general, provides increased masticatory efficiency as a fixed restoration and similar gingival appearance with esthetic gingival porcelain. It is also detachable by dentist to allow easier after-care of soft tissue and the prosthesis.

• 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