• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.60 no.1
• /
• pp.127-134
• /
• 2022

Among many contributing factors of implant failure, excessive loading and inflammation contribute mainly to increasing implant failure rate. Especially, poor oral hygiene around implants is one of the most common reasons for implant failure. When implant prosthesis fails to function, the clinician should re-diagnose and plan treatment using the remaining implants. Additional implantation may be needed to make a new type of prosthesis or either implant-assisted RPD and implant overdenture treatment may be performed using the remaining implants. In this article, a patient whose fixed implant prosthesis in the maxilla had failed of poor oral hygiene maintenance was reported to be recovered with removable implant overdenture by using remaining implant abutments and a milled bar with additional retentive elements. Through this treatment, the clinical results were satisfactory in terms of esthetics, masticatory function recovery and oral hygiene management.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.54 no.2
• /
• pp.146-151
• /
• 2016

In patients with fully edentulous maxilla, fabrication of implant-supported overdenture can be a viable treatment option, when a minimum of six implants were strategically placed. Among several attachment systems used for implant-supported overdentures, milled-bars prevent rotational movement of denture, thus showing great stability, and have the advantage of splinting multiple implants with each other. In this case report, a milled-bar supported overdenture was fabricated for a patient suffering from condition of fully edentulous maxilla with severe ridge resorption in the anterior residual ridge. Seven implants composed of three different systems were effectively utilized by CAD/CAM customized abutment and cement-retained milled bar.

• 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 Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.7 no.3
• /
• pp.264-270
• /
• 2015

This report describes the case of an edentulous patient with an atrophic maxilla and severe class III malocclusion. Prosthetic rehabilitation was performed using CAD/CAM techniques for manufacturing an implant-supported overdenture with horizontal insertion. A vestibulo-lingual insertion overdenture is a precision prosthesis with a fixation system affording a good fit between the primary and secondary structure. Both structures exhibit passive horizontal adjustment. This treatment option requires the same number of implants as implant-supported fixed dentures. The horizontal assembly system prevents the prosthesis from loosening or moving in response to axial and non-axial forces. The technique was used to rehabilitate a patient presenting an atrophic upper maxilla, with the insertion of 8 implants. No complications were reported at follow-up 3, 6 and 12 months after fitting of the prosthesis. This system offers solutions to the clinical and laboratory complications associated with hybrid prostheses, concealing emergence of the chimneys and improving implant-prosthesis hygiene.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.47-50
• /
• 2011

Despite the greater retention and low maintenance of bar attachment system, the longer clinical time and increased number of visits were the assignments to overcome in bar attachment system. This case report describes SFI-Bar$^{(R)}$ (Cendres et Me$\'{e}$taux, Biel/Bienne, Switzerland) to be solve those problems. A 65-year-old female, who had severely absorbed mandible, hoped to wear a stable mandibular denture without pain. As soon as two implants were placed on mandible, a tube bar was connected to two adaptors connected to each implant. The length of the tube bar was adjusted considering inter implant distance, and reconnected to the adaptors. Finally a female part was seated beneath the denture. This case report showed that a satisfactory clinical result was achieved by delivering bar overdenture immediately after implant placement without laboratory procedure.

• Journal of the Korean Academy of Esthetic Dentistry
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.24-40
• /
• 2018

Often there are edentulous patients with severe vertical resorption of the alveolar ridge so that implant placement in the mandibular posterior is impossible. In this case, implants can be placed in the anterior portion of the mandible and the patient can be treated with an implant assisted overdenture, but the inherent discomfort of the removable prosthesis can not be overcome. However, if implants are appropriately placed between the mental foramen of both sides and a fixed hybrid prosthesis is fabricated to the patient, the patient will be satisfied without the inconvenience of the removable prosthesis. However, the treatment plan should be well designed to prevent disadvantages and expected complications of fixed hybrid prosthesis. Based on my clinical experience, I will explain treatment plan and protocol in detail.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.7 no.3
• /
• pp.191-198
• /
• 2015

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to compare the coronal bone level and patient satisfaction in 1-implant and 2-implant assisted mandibular overdentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Twenty patients who had maladaptive mandibular dentures were treated in this study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups. The first group received 1 implant (Simple line II, Implantium, South Korea) in their mandibular midline and the second group received 2 implants in their B and D regions (according to Misch's category). If the primary stability of each implant was at least 60 ISQ, ball attachment was placed and denture relined with soft liner. After 6 weeks, retentive cap incorporated with hard acrylic resin. In the 6 and 12 months recalls, periapical digital radiograph were made and visual analogue scale questionnaires were used to record patient satisfaction. The Friedman test was done for comparing the presurgical and postsurgical parameters in each group and the U-Mann Whitney test (P<.05) was done for comparison of post-treatment results between the two groups. RESULTS. All implants achieved sufficient primary stability to be immediately loaded. Patient satisfaction was high, and there were no significant differences between two groups (P>.05). In addition, mean marginal bone loss was $0.6{\pm}0.67$ mm in the first group and $0.6{\pm}0.51$ mm in the second group, after 12 month. Mean marginal bone loss showed no significant differences between two groups. CONCLUSION. This preliminary one-year result indicated that mandibular overdentures anchored to a single implant can be a safe and cost-effective method as a starting step for implant-overdenture treatment.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.60 no.1
• /
• pp.71-79
• /
• 2022

Excessive crown height space increases can cause crestal bone loss and screw loosening after prosthesis is placed. Milled bar and implant overdenture can be used as a treatment method for partially edentulous patients who have severe alveolar bone loss and excessive crown height space. Milled bar can provide primary splinting effect and stability between implants. Also, milled bar with additional retention device such as Advanced Dental Device-Treatment Of Choice (ADD-TOC) and magnet can provide additional retention force for implant overdenture. In this case, the patient has a partially edentulous mandible that has severe alveolar bone loss and multiple number of teeth loss after excision due to leiomyosarcoma. Because of the long-term loss of mandibular molars, the opposing teeth were extruded. Maxillary left molars were corrected to the occlusal plane through molar intrusion, and mandibular left molar region were treated with implant overdenture, using milled bar with ADD-TOC and magnet after implant placement. The clinical result was satisfactory on the aspect of esthetic and masticatory function.

• 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.

• 대한치과보철학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 1994.05a
• /
• pp.49.2-49.2
• /
• 1994