J Korean Acad Prosthodont.  2009 Apr;47(2):222-231. 10.4047/jkap.2009.47.2.222.

Strains of abutment and bones on implant overdentures

• Kim MS
• Heo SJ
• Koak JY
• Kim SK

• KMID: 2195620
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2009.47.2.222

Abstract

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).

Keyword

implant; overdenture; abutment; bone; strain; splinting

MeSH Terms

Dental Implants
Denture, Complete
Denture, Overlay
Dentures
Electric Impedance
Humans
Prostheses and Implants
Splints
Sprains and Strains
Dental Implants

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Strain gauges (Curiosity Technology, Seoul, Korea) bonded to cast bar and labial bone simulant.

• 

  Fig. 2. Strain gauges bonded to ball abutment and labial bone simulant.

• 

  Fig. 3. Positions of each strain gauge channels in splint type overdenture.

• 

  Fig. 4. Positions of each strain gauge channels in unsplint type overdenture.

• 

  Fig. 5. Strain values on bar type overdenture in parallel model under left side loading.

• 

  Fig. 6. Strain values on ball type overdenture in parallel model under left side loading.

• 

  Fig. 7. Strain values on bar type overdenture in unparallel model under right side loading.

• 

  Fig. 8. Strain values on ball type overdenture in unparallel model under right side loading.

Reference

1.van Waas MA. The influence of clinical variables on patients' satisfaction with complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1990. 63:307–10.

2.Heckmann SM., Winter W., Meyer M., Weber HP., Wichmann MG. Overdenture attachment selection and the loading of implant and denture-bearing area. Part 2: A methodical study using five types of attachment. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001. 12:640–7.

3.Jemt T., Book K., Karlsson S. Occlusal force and mandibular movements in patients with removable overdentures and fixed prostheses supported by implants in the maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993. 8:301–8.

4.Chung KH., Chung CY., Cagna DR., Cronin RJ Jr. Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont. 2004. 13:221–6.

5.Van Steenberghe D., Quirynen M., Calberson L., Demanet M. A prospective evaluation of the fate of 697 consecutive intra-oral fixtures modum Branemark in the rehabilitation of edentulism. J Head Neck Pathol. 1987. 6:53–58.

6.Mericske-Stern R., Steinlin Schaffner T., Marti P., Geering AH. Peri-implant mucosal aspects of ITI implants supporting overdentures. A five-year longitudinal study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994. 5:9–18.

7.Jemt T., Chai J., Harnett J., Heath MR., Hutton JE., Johns RB., McKenna S., McNamara DC., van Steenberghe D., Taylor R., Watson RM., Herrmann I. A 5-year prospective multi-center follow-up report on overdentures supported by osseointegrated implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996. 11:291–8.

8.Naert I., Gizani S., Vuylsteke M., Van Steenberghe D. A 5-year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction. J Oral Rehabil. 1999. 26:195–202.

9.Feine JS., Carlsson GE., Awad MA., Chehade A., Duncan WJ., Gizani S., Head T., Lund JP., MacEntee M., Mericske-Stern R., Mojon P., Morais J., Naert I., Payne AG., Penrod J., Stoker GT., Tawse-Smith A., Taylor TD., Thomason JM., Thomson WM., Wismeijer D. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Montreal, Quebec, May 24-25, 2002. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002. 17:601–2.

10.Feine JS., Carlsson GE., Awad MA., Chehade A., Duncan WJ., Gizani S., Head T., Heydecke G., Lund JP., MacEntee M., Mericske-Stern R., Mojon P., Morais JA., Naert I., Payne AG., Penrod J., Stoker GT., Tawse-Smith A., Taylor TD., Thomason JM., Thomson WM., Wismeijer D. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Gerodontology. 2002. 19:3–4.

11.Visser A., Meijer HJ., Raghoebar GM., Vissink A. Implant-retained mandibular overdentures versus conventional dentures: 10 years of care and aftercare. Int J Prosthodont. 2006. 19:271–8.

12.Wiemeyer AS., Agar JR., Kazemi RB. Orientation of retentive matrices on spherical attachments independent of implant parallelism. J Prosthet Dent. 2001. 86:434–7.

13.Prieskel HW. Overdentures made easy: a guide to implant and root supported prostheses. London: Quintessence;1996. p. 89.

14.Merickske-Stern RD., Zarb GA. Clinical protocol for treatment with supported overdentures. Zarb GA, Bolender CL, Carlsson GE, editors. Boucher' s prosthodontic treatment for edentulous patients. 11th ed.St. Louis: Mosby;1997. p. 527.

15.Landa LS., Cho SC., Froum SJ., Elian N., Tarnow DP. A prospective 2-year clinical evaluation of overdentures attached to nonsplinted implants utilizing ERA attachments. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent. 2001. 13:151–6.

16.Burns DR. The mandibular complete overdenture. Dent Clin North Am. 2004. 48:603–23.

17.Gulizio MP., Agar JR., Kelly JR., Taylor TD. Effect of implant angulation upon retention of overdenture attachments. J Prosthodont. 2005. 14:3–11.

18.Krennmair G., Ulm C. The symphyseal single-tooth implant for anchorage of a mandibular complete denture in geriatric patients: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001. 16:98–104.

19.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.

20.Menicucci G., Lorenzetti M., Pera P., Preti G. Mandibular implant-retained overdenture: a clinical trial of two anchorage systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998. 13:851–6.

21.Kenney R., Richards MW. Photoelastic stress patterns produced by implant-retained overdentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1998. 80:559–64.

22.Meijer HJ., Kuiper JH., Starmans FJ., Bosman F. Stress distribution around dental implants: influence of superstructure, length of implants, and height of mandible. J Prosthet Dent. 1992. 68:96–102.

23.Mericske-Stern R., Piotti M., Sirtes G. 3-D in vivo force measurements on mandibular implants supporting overdentures. A comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996. 7:387–96.

24.Burns DR. Mandibular implant overdenture treatment: consensus and controversy. J Prosthodont. 2000. 9:37–46.

25.Merickske-Stern R. Overdentures supported by ITI implants. In: Schroeder A, Sutter F, buser D, Krekler G,eds. Oral Implantology: basics, ITI hollow cylinder system. 2nd ed.Stuttgart: Thieme;1996. p. 330–67.

26.Chao YL., Meijer HJ., Van Oort RP., Versteegh PA. The incomprehensible success of the implant stabilised overdenture in the edentulous mandible: a literature review on transfer of chewing forces to bone surrounding implants. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 1995. 3:255–61.

27.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.

28.Akc¸a K., Cehreli MC., Iplikc¸ioglu H. A comparison of three-dimensional finite element stress analysis with in vitro strain gauge measurements on dental implants. Int J Prosthodont. 2002. 15:115–21.

29.Dally LW., Riley WF. Experimental Stress Analysis. Singapore, Japan, McGraw-Hill;1985. p. 217–72.

30.Glantz PO., Rangert B., Svensson A., Stafford GD., Arnvidarson B., Randow K., Linde ′n U., Hulte ′n J. On clinical loading of osseointegrated implants. A methodological and clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1993. 4:99–105.

31.Pearson OM., Lieberman DE. The aging of Wolff s law: ontogeny and responses to mechanical loading in cortical bone. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2004. 39:63–99.

32.Jemt T. Three-dimensional distortion of gold alloy castings and welded titanium frameworks. Measurements of the precision of fit between completed implant prostheses and the master casts in routine edentulous situations. J Oral Rehabil. 1995. 22:557–64.

33.Martin RB., Burr DB. Structure, function, and adaptation of compact bone. New York,. 1989. 143–85.

34.Frost HM. Perspectives: bone' s mechanical usage windows. Bone Miner. 1992. 19:257–71.

35.Frost HM. Wolff' s Law and bone' s structural adaptations to mechanical usage: an overview for clinicians. Angle Orthod. 1994. 64:175–88.