• Title/Summary/Keyword: implant supported overdenture

Search Result 82, Processing Time 0.016 seconds

Implants in conjunction with removable partial denture (임플란트를 이용한 국소의치 수복)

  • Kim, Seong-Kyun;Yoo, Soo-Yeon;Park, In-Phil;Lee, Joo-Hee
    • The Journal of the Korean dental association
    • /
    • v.49 no.2
    • /
    • pp.77-84
    • /
    • 2011
  • The benefits of implant supported overdenture are readily apparent for the fully edentulous patients and have been well documented, however, there is deficiency of the studies regarding the combination of implants with removable partial dentures for partially edentulous patients. The purpose of this article is to review the literature concerning implants with removable partial dentures and evaluate the evidence for this clinical approach. Through many clinical case reports and studies we have searched from a broad variety of journals, we present the six considerations needed to contemplate respecting implants with removable partial denture in partially edentulous patients. First, the connection between abutment tooth and removable partial denture has to be rigid and the link between implant and removable partial denture should be hinged. Second, a mesial rest acts better in the point of force distribution for distal extension removable partial denture and splinting between implants is also a favorable choice. Third, T bar has an advantage for implants which are used as abutments in distal extension removable partial denture. Forth, as we all known functional impression is better way to reproduce movement for distal extension removable partial denture. Fifth, indirect retainer and guiding plane on the proximal surfaces of terminal abutment teeth are important in preventing denture base lifting. Sixth, implants in conjunction with removable partial denture is superior in the esthetic and phonetic as well as cost-effective point of view. We also suggest that which place we should install implants for force distribution and which diameter and length of implants should be used. in this review article, we recommend to locate the implant near of the abutment tooth for esthetics or near of first molar position for good stress distribution. The diameter and length of implant also influence to stress distribution. When we compare to conservative partial denture, patients go for removable partial denture using implants due to convenience, better support and retention according to several studies. But it is true that we need to study more on this subject and collect long term follow up cases before we discuss on it. So it is enough to bring this subject into the surface of prosthetic treatment by this article.

Comparison of retentive force and wear pattern of Locator® and ADD-TOC attachments combined with CAD-CAM milled bar

  • Chae, Sung-Ki;Cho, Won-Tak;Choi, Jae-Won;Bae, Eun-Bin;Bae, Ji-Hyeon;Bae, Gang-Ho;Huh, Jung-Bo
    • The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
    • /
    • v.14 no.1
    • /
    • pp.12-21
    • /
    • 2022
  • PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to investigate changes in retention and wear pattern of Locator® and ADD-TOC attachments on a digital milled bar by performing chewing simulation and repeated insertion/removal of prostheses in fully edentulous models. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Locator (Locator®; Zest Anchors Inc., Escondido, CA, USA) was selected as the control group and ADD-TOC (ADD-TOC; PNUAdd Co., Ltd., Busan, Republic of Korea) as the experimental group. A CAD-CAM milled bar was mounted on a master model and 3 threaded holes for connecting a bar attachment was formed using a tap. Locator and ADD-TOC attachments were then attached to the milled bar. Simulated mastication and repeated insertion/removal were performed over 400,000 cyclic loadings and 1,080 insertions/removals, respectively. Wear patterns on deformed attachment were investigated by field emission scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS. For the ADD-TOC attachments, chewing simulation and repeated insertion/removal resulted in a mean initial retentive force of 24.43 ± 4.89 N, which were significantly lower than that of the Locator attachment, 34.33 ± 8.25 N (P < .05). Amounts of retention loss relative to baseline for the Locator and ADD-TOC attachments were 21.74 ± 7.07 and 8.98 ± 5.76 N (P < .05). CONCLUSION. CAD-CAM milled bar with the ADD-TOC attachment had a lower initial retentive force than the Locator attachment. However, the ADD-TOC attachment might be suitable for long-term use as it showed less deformation and had a higher retentive force after simulated mastication and insertion/removal repetitions.