Comparison between mainly mucosa-supported and combined mucosa-Implant-supported mandibular overdentures
Removable Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.Implant Dentistry (Impact Factor: 1.18). 01/2005; 13(4):386-94. DOI: 10.1097/01.id.0000144512.43654.08
The purpose of this study is to compare mainly mucosa-supported and combined mucosa-implant-supported complete mandibular overdentures. Ten completely edentulous patients received 20 press-fit dental implants at the canine regions of the mandible. Each patient received 2 implants, which were left submerged and unloaded for 4 months. The patients were divided into 2 groups: group I patients received mandibular overdentures retained by a magnet attachment (mainly mucosa-supported overdenture). Group II patients received mandibular overdentures retained by a bar attachment (combined mucosa-implant-supported overdenture). The patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically immediately after overdenture delivery and after 6 months, 12 months, and 18 months. The results showed that the mainly mucosa-supported overdentures had less bone resorption distal to the implant in comparison to the combined mucosa-implant-supported overdentures. Plaque index score was significantly high in the group treated with magnet-retained overdentures. After 18 months follow up, the group treated with combined mucosa-implant-supported overdentures showed a significant increase in gingival inflammation when compared with the other group. The type of attachment or support may affect gingival inflammation or plaque accumulation. Increased functional load may affect bone density and resorption.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Toward realizing the performance of functional and versatile dental magnetic attachments in the third generation required for individual prosthesis, it is important to control retentive characteristics of the attachments. For this purpose, three new types of magnetic attachment, i.e., split-pole type with a slant magnetization, modified split-pole type, and cylinder type, have been developed and evaluated in terms of the restoring force as well as the retentive force. The new attachments are designed to have high corrosion resistance, combining magnetic and nonmagnetic stainless steels and microlaser welding similar to the usual cup-yoke and sandwich-yoke types. It has been found that the two split-pole types have stronger restoring force and the cylinder type has weaker restoring force in comparison with the usual magnetic attachments. The attachments can be used properly and selectively according to individual requirement on abutment state and denture retention. As a result, the newly developed attachments may provide flexible retention performance useful for more effective and extensive applications of a magnetic attachment.IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 04/2008; 55(3):1185-90. DOI:10.1109/TBME.2008.915730 · 2.35 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A removable implant-retained dental prosthesis in an edentulous mandible can use telescopic crowns or a bar superstructure as anchorage elements for an overdenture. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical results for bar-anchored and telescopic crown-retained overdentures in implant prosthetic treatment of the toothless lower jaw with two or more implants placed in the intraforaminal region. A clinical and radiographical comparison was made of the telescope vs. the bar method for removable prosthetic rehabilitation treatments in patients with an edentulous mandible. For evaluation of the clinical data, the sulcus fluid flow rate, Periotest values, and the peri-implant bone loss were recorded. In the follow-up examinations, 19 implant losses were reported between insertion and review of 328 implants. The frequency distribution of the observed loss rates showed no treatment-specific trend. In the group with bar-treated implants, failure led to 'group loss' of the whole prosthetic superstructure. Failure of one of the double-crown-stabilized full dental prosthesis could usually be adapted so that the overdenture remained usable even without re-implantation. After comparing all the clinical parameters evaluated, no significant difference between the stabilization of full dentures via conus and telescopic crowns and bar-anchored dentures could be found. The choice of one particular method remains the decision of the professional treating the patient.Clinical Oral Implants Research 06/2008; 19(5):530-7. DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01500.x · 3.89 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The effect of different mucosa characteristics on stress distribution of complete dentures and overdentures remains unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different mucosa thickness and resiliency on the stress distribution of complete dentures and implant-retained overdentures using a two-dimensional finite element analysis. Representative models of the edentulous mandible were constructed on AutoCAD software according to the groups' characteristics. In group CD, a model of the edentulous mandible supporting a complete denture was obtained while in group IO, a model of edentulous mandible supporting an overdenture over two unsplinted implants with an o' ring system was constructed. In each group, mucosa assumed three characteristics of thickness (1, 3 and 5 mm) corresponding to the resiliencies hard, resilient and soft respectively. Evaluation was performed on Ansys software with 100N vertical load applied on central incisor teeth. The principal stress was used as analysis criteria. Group IO showed higher stress values than group CD regardless of mucosal thickness and resiliency. Stress decreased at the supporting tissues in both groups as the thickness and resiliency of mucosa increased. In relation to the supporting tissues, cortical bone showed the highest stress values. It was concluded that the use of an attachment system increases stress values and the thickness and resiliency of mucosa influence more on these values.Gerodontology 12/2009; 26(4):273-81. DOI:10.1111/j.1741-2358.2008.00268.x · 1.09 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.