SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Acta Odontologica Turcica / 2017 / Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 1

Evaluation of stress distribution characteristics on various bar designs of three-implant-supported mandibular overdentures

Üç-implant-destekli mandibular overdenture protezlerde çeşitli bar tasarımlarının stres iletim karakterlerinin değerlendirilmesi

Emre Tokar
Serdar Polat
Bülent Uludağ
Pages
8–13
Publication Date
2017-01-02
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Bars with distally placed stud attachments and surface treatment with electroforming seems to increase stress levels around the implants.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Implant-supported-overdentures, instead of conventional complete dentures, are frequently recommended to rehabilitate patients having edentulous mandible.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study was to evaluate the stress distribution characteristics of mandibular implant-supported overdentures with four different bar attachment designs.Materials and Method: A photoelastic mandibular model with three implants (3.75 mm - 13 mm) placed at the interforaminal region was generated from a cast of an edentulous mandible.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Bars with distally placed stud attachments and surface treatment with electroforming seems to increase stress levels around the implants.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Dental stres analizi · hassas tutuculu protez · implant-destekli diş protezi

Abstract

Objective: Implant-supported-overdentures, instead of conventional complete dentures, are frequently recommended to rehabilitate patients having edentulous mandible. The aim of this study was to evaluate the stress distribution characteristics of mandibular implant-supported overdentures with four different bar attachment designs.Materials and Method: A photoelastic mandibular model with three implants (3.75 mm - 13 mm) placed at the interforaminal region was generated from a cast of an edentulous mandible. Four mandibular bar overdenture designs were fabricated: bar-clip, bar-galvano, bar-locator, and bar-ceka. Axial vertical loads (135 N) were applied to the central fossa of the right first molar area for each overdenture design. Stress concentrations were recorded photographically and analyzed visually.Results: The tested bar attachment designs revealed low and moderate stress levels. The lowest stress was observed with the bar-clip design, followed by bar-locator, bar-ceka, and bar-galvano designs.Conclusion: The loads were distributed to all of the implants. Studied designs experienced moderate stress levels around the loaded side implant. Bars with distally placed stud attachments and surface treatment with electroforming seems to increase stress levels around the implants.

Özet

Amaç: Dişsiz mandibulaya sahip hastaların tedavisinde implant-destekli overdenture protezler konvansiyonel tam protezlerin yerine sıklıkla tercih edilmektedirler. Bu çalışmanın amacı, dört farklı bar tutucu tasarımına sahip üç-implant-destekli mandibular overdenture protezlerin stres iletim karakterlerini incelemektir.Gereç ve Yöntem: Dişsiz mandibular bir modelden interforaminal bölgesine üç implantın (3.75 mm - 13 mm) yerleştirildiği bir fotoelastik mandibular model hazırlandı. Bu model üzerine dört farklı bar tasarımı olan mandibular overdenture yapıldı: bar klips, bar-galvano, bar-locator ve bar-ceka. Her bir overdenture tasarımında, sağ birinci molar dişin santral fossasına vertikal yükleme (135 N) yapıldı. Stres konsantrasyonları fotoğrafik olarak kaydedildi ve görsel olarak analiz edildi.Bulgular: Çalışmada kullanılan bar tutucu tasarımları düşük ve orta derecelerde stres gösterdi. En düşük stres bulgusu bar klips tasarımında bulunurken, bar-locator, bar-ceka ve bar-galvano tasarımları bunu takip etti.Sonuç: Uygulanan yükler bütün implantlara dağıtılmıştır. Çalışmada değerlendirilen tasarımlar yükleme yapılan taraftaki implantın çevresinde orta derecede strese sebep olmuştur. Bar tutucunun distallerine stud tutucu uygulaması ve elektroforming yüzey işlemi implantların çevresindeki stresi arttırabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Tokar, E., Polat, S., Uludağ, B. (2017). Evaluation of stress distribution characteristics on various bar designs of three-implant-supported mandibular overdentures. Acta Odontologica Turcica, Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 1, 8–13. https://ajindex.com/articles/265294

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Sadowsky SJ, Caputo AA. Effect of anchorage systems and extension base contact on load transfer with mandibular implant-retained overdentures. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:327-34.
  2. Mazaro JV, Filho HG, Vedovatto E, Pellizzer EP, Rezende MC, Zavanelli AC. Evaluation of stress patterns produced by implant-retained overdentures and implant-retained fixed partial denture. J Craniofac Surg 2011;22:2153-7.
  3. Begg T, Geerts GA, Gryzagoridis J. Stress patterns around distal angled implants in the all-on-four concept configuration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:663-71.
  4. Assuncao WG, Barao VA, Tabata LF, Gomes EA, Delben JA, dos Santos PH. Biomechanics studies in dentistry: bioengineering applied in oral implantology. J Craniofac Surg 2009;20:1173-7.
  5. Ochiai KT, Williams BH, Hojo S, Nishimura R, Caputo AA. Photoelastic analysis of the effect of palatal support on various implant-supported overdenture designs. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:421-7.
  6. Pigozzo MN, Lagana DC, Sesma N, Souza GF, Ichi AL. Photoelastic stress analysis in mandibular bone surrounding bar-clip overdenture implants. Braz Oral Res 2014;28:1-8.
  7. Naert I, Quirynen M, Hooghe M, van Steenberghe D. A comparative prospective study of splinted and unsplinted Branemark implants in mandibular overdenture therapy: a preliminary report. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:486-92.
  8. Takeshita S, Kanazawa M, Minakuchi S. Stress analysis of mandibular two-implant overdenture with different attachment systems. Dent Mater J 2011;30:928-34.
  9. Trakas T, Michalakis K, Kang K, Hirayama H. Attachment systems for implant retained overdentures: a literature review. Implant Dent 2006;15:24-34.
  10. Tokuhisa M, Matsushita Y, Koyano K. In vitro study of a mandibular implant overdenture retained with ball, magnet, or bar attachments: comparison of load transfer and denture stability. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:128-34.
  11. Menicucci G, Lorenzetti M, Pera P, Preti G. Mandibular implant-retained overdenture: Finite element analysis of two anchorage systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:369-76.
  12. Manju V, Sreelal T. Mandibular implant-supported overdenture: an in vitro comparison of ball, bar, and magnetic attachments. J Oral Implantol 2013;39:302-7.
  13. Dashti MH, Atashrazm P, Emadi MI, Mishaeel S, Banava S. The effects of two attachment types on the stresses introduced to the mandibular residual ridge: a 3D finite element analysis. Quintessence Int 2013;44:585-90.
  14. Daas M, Dubois G, Bonnet AS, Lipinski P, Rignon-Bret C. A complete finite element model of a