ArticlePDF Available

Implant-supported Overdenture

Authors:
  • Government dental college Aurangabad Maharashtra

Abstract and Figures

Edentulous patients often experience problems with their mandi­bular complete dentures. Patients with the resorbed mandibular ridge often complain of lack of stability and retention of the mandibular denture, together with a decreased chewing ability. While implant-supported fixed prosthesis offers many advantages, they are very expensive and not indicated in many conditions. Implant-supported removable prosthesis can be a choice of treatment in such cases. This clinical report describes a method to rehabilitate a patient with resorbed mandibular ridge with implant-supported overdenture. How to cite this article Kadam KS, Dange SP, Mahale K, Khalikar SA, Khalikar A. Implant-supported Overdenture. Int J Oral Implantol Clin Res 2017;8(1):22-25.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Kuntal S Kadam et al
22
IJOICR
Implant-supported Overdenture
1Kuntal S Kadam, 2Shankar P Dange, 3Kishore Mahale, 4Smita A Khalikar, 5Arun Khalikar
ABSTRACT
Edentulous patients often experience problems with their mandi-
bular complete dentures. Patients with the resorbed mandibular
ridge often complain of lack of stability and retention of the man-
dibular denture, together with a decreased chewing ability. While
implant-supported xed prosthesis offers many advantages, they
are very expensive and not indicated in many conditions. Implant-
supported removable prosthesis can be a choice of treatment in
such cases. This clinical report describes a method to rehabilitate
a patient with resorbed mandibular ridge with implant-supported
overdenture.
Keywords: Implant, Restoration, Tooth replacement.
How to cite this article: Kadam KS, Dange SP, Mahale K,
Khalikar SA, Khalikar A. Implant-supported Overdenture. Int
J Oral Implantol Clin Res 2017;8(1):22-25.
Source of support: Nil
Conict of interest: None
INTRODUCTION
Edentulous patients often experience problems with
their mandibular complete dentures. Patients with the
resorbed mandibular ridge often complain of lack of sta-
bility and retention of the mandibular denture, together
with a decreased chewing ability.1 Insertion of implants
creates more favorable environment for the restoration
in such patients. Implant-supported prostheses options
for an edentulous arch include implant-supported fixed
prosthesis and implant-supported removable prosthesis.
While implant-supported fixed prosthesis offers many
advantages like being esthetically pleasing and feels
being actually like natural dentition, they are very expen-
sive and not indicated in many conditions.2 Implant-
supported removable prosthesis offers certain advantages
over implant-supported fixed restoration.2 Many patients
are satisfied with a stable implant-supported overdenture
that requires limited clinical time and financial expense.1
CASE REPORT
1Postgraduate Student, 2Dean and Professor, 3Professor and
Head, 4,5Associate Professor
1-5Department of Prosthodontics, Government Dental College
and Hospital, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India
Corresponding Author: Kuntal S Kadam, Postgraduate
Student, Department of Prosthodontics, Government Dental
College and Hospital, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India, Phone:
+919422504343, e-mail: drkuntalkadam@gmail.com
10.5005/jp-journals-10012-1162
This clinical report describes a method to rehabilitate a
patient with resorbed mandibular ridge with implant-
supported overdenture.
CASE REPORT
A 49-year-old female reported to the Department of
Prosthodontics, Government Dental College and Hospi-
tal, Aurangabad, India, with the chief complaint of dif-
ficulty in chewing food and loose-fitting lower denture.
Patient had been edentulous since past 1.5 years due to
extraction of periodontally compromised and carious
teeth. She had been using a set of complete dentures for
past 6 months and was not satisfied as lower denture was
not stable and fitting well. Clinical examination revealed
edentulous maxillary and mandibular ridges with class
I ridge relation (Fig. 1). Mandibular ridge was resorbed
(Atwoods class IV).
Patient was informed about various treatment options
available. Implant-supported fixed prosthesis could not
be planned as lip support and esthetics would not be
improved. As patient was primarily concerned about
retention of the dentures, it was decided to rehabilitate the
patient using mandibular implant-supported overdenture
opposing maxillary complete denture.
Diagnostic impressions were made. Diagnostic ortho-
pantomogram (OPG) and casts, records were studied.
Implant placement was planned at B and D positions
after obtaining consent from patient (Misch’s overdenture
options – OD1).2 Treatment was divided into three phases:
(1) diagnostic denture fabrication, (2) implant placement,
and (3) final prosthesis fabrication.
Fig. 1: Preoperative intraoral view
Implant-supported Overdenture
International Journal of Oral Implantology and Clinical Research, January-April 2017;8(1):22-25
23
IJOICR
Diagnostic denture fabrication
Diagnostic denture was fabricated using conventional
steps for denture fabrication. It was used to analyze the
space available for overdenture attachment and fabrica-
tion of radiographic stent, which was later to be used as
a surgical stent (Fig. 2).
Implant placement
Cone beam computed tomography analysis was done.
Two implants of 4.2 × 10 mm were placed at B and D
positions. Stage II surgery was carried out after 3 months
with radiographic and clinical evidence of healing (Fig. 3).
Healing abutments were placed. After soft tissue healing
prefabricated single ball abutments were attached (Fig. 4).
Final prosthesis fabrication
Two weeks after placement of healing abutments, primary
impression was made using irreversible hydrocolloid
impression material. Maxillary final impression was
made using conventional technique. For mandibular final
impression, custom tray was fabricated and window was
created for splinted open tray pickup/direct impression
of implants. Border molding was completed. Then, open
tray impression copings were placed over implants.
Low-viscosity polyvinyl siloxane was loaded in the tray.
Impression copings were splinted using self-cure acrylic
resin. After complete polymerization, the copings were
loosened and tray was removed (Figs 5 and 6). Definitive
casts were made.
Autopolymerizing acrylic resin was used to fabricate
denture bases over the definitive cast. Using face bow
record, upper cast was mounted and then centric relation
was recorded. Bilateral balanced occlusion scheme was
used for teeth arrangement. Try-in was done. Retentive
metal housings were incorporated by an indirect method.
For this, after dewaxing, ball abutment analogs were
attached to the cast. Metal housing with retentive rings
were placed over analogs and denture was processed.
Denture finishing and polishing were done in a conven-
tional manner.
The prosthesis was delivered and patient was instructed
about the aftercare and recall schedule (Figs 7 and 8).
DISCUSSION
Overdenture is defined as any removable dental pros-
thesis that covers and rests on one or more remaining
natural teeth, the roots of natural teeth, and/or dental
Fig. 2: Surgical stent placed intraorally Fig. 3: OPG after healing
Fig. 4: Solitary ball attachment incorporated Fig. 5: Impression copings splinted with acrylic resin
Kuntal S Kadam et al
24
implants; a dental prosthesis that covers and is partially
supported by natural teeth, natural tooth roots, and/or
dental implant (Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms 8). If an
edentulous patient is willing to remain with a remov-
able prosthesis, an overdenture is often the treatment of
Fig. 6: Final impression
Fig. 7: Intaglio surface of processed denture showing
incorporated stainless steel housings with white retentive caps
Fig. 8: Preoperative and postoperative extraoral view
choice.2 Implant-supported overdentures provide a good
opportunity for dentists to improve the quality-of-life and
oral health of the patient.3 The chewing efficiency with an
implant-supported overdenture is improved by almost
20% compared with a traditional complete denture.2 The
primary indication for a mandibular implant-supported
overdenture is problems often found with mandibular
dentures, such as lack of retention or stability, decrease in
function, difficulty in speech, tissue sensitivity, and soft
tissue abrasion.2 A number of implants incorporated are
to be selected according to specific clinical and individual
needs of the patient.4 In this case, two implant-supported
mandibular prosthesis was planned taking into consid-
eration anatomical features, patient’s expectations, and
the cost factor. The choice of attachment depends upon
the retention required, jaw anatomy, interridge distance,
overlying mucosa, oral function, and patient compliance
for recall.3 Single attachments have following advantages:5
• Lesscostly
• Lesstechnique-sensitive
• Easiertoclean6
Implant-supported Overdenture
International Journal of Oral Implantology and Clinical Research, January-April 2017;8(1):22-25
25
IJOICR
Opposing arch condition influences the choice of
occlusal concept. Most practitioners have recommended
a balanced occlusion for the patient with an edentulous
maxilla opposing implant-supported overdenture.7
Most patients seeking improvement in the retention
and stability of the mandibular denture and decrease of
oral soreness have no objections to removable prostheses
and do not desire complete fixed prostheses and their
implied more difficult oral hygienic procedures.1
SUMMARY
This case report presents a novel treatment option to
rehabilitate an edentulous patient with a resorbed man-
dibular ridge. Implant-supported overdenture proves
to be a better treatment alternative to the conventional
denture. Hence, this treatment modality should be
practiced whenever indicated. It will preserve hard
and soft tissues of the patient and give psychological
relief to the patient, which he expects from the dental
treatment.
REFERENCES
1. Batenburg RH, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A. Treatment
concept for mandibular overdentures supported by endosseous
implants: a literature review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998
Jul-Aug;13(4):539-545.
2. Misch CE. Contemporary implant dentistry. Implant Dent
1999;8(1):90.
3. Cakarer S, Can T, Yaltirik M, Keskin C. Complications associ-
ated with the ball, bar and locator attachments for implant-
supported overdentures. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011
Nov 1;16(7):953-959.
4. Mericske-Stern R. Treatment outcomes with implant-supported
overdentures: clinical considerations. J Prosthet Dent 1998
Jan;79(1):66-73.
5. Prasad DK, Prasad DA, Buch M. Selection of attachment
systems in fabricating an implant supported overdenture.
J Dent Implants 2014;4(2):177-181.
6. Sadowsky SJ. Mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a
literature review. J Prosthet Dent 2001 Nov;86(5):468-473.
7. Wismeijer D, van Waas MA, Kalk W. Factors to consider
in selecting an occlusal concept for patients with implants in
the edentulous mandible. J Prosthet Dent 1995 Oct;74(4):
380-384.
... However, those who received complete dentures were dissatisfied due of the lack of retention, support and stability of the complete denture leading to discomfort, and diminish of the patients' function. 1,2 Utilization of dental implants in restoring the missing teeth started in the 1970's. This treatment concept consisted of using the dental implants to inspire the implant over-denture treatment modality, instead of the well-known tooth over-denture. ...
... 12 Implant supported removable prosthesis have more advantages than fixed prosthesis in a way that they require less chair time and less financial expenses. 13 The implant supported overdenture is economical treatment option as it provide facial support, easy to construct, can restore both dental and alveolar tissues. Various designs are available for the implant supported overdenture based upon the attachment system which can be stud, magnet and bar which eventually depends upon the number of implants, patient expectations, retention required and cost. ...
... The milled bar implant supported overdenture presents lower prosthetic complication rates and need lesser maintenance service as compared to implant retained prostheses, which use a resilient anchorage system These advantages enhance phonetics, esthetics, correct lip support, maintenance, and patient comfort. (31) A round circular bar is useful in situations where the bar must be bent to accommodate the ridge anatomy. (32) Round bars allow greater distal and vertical movement of the denture base (for instance, as consequence of mucosal resiliency and/or bone resorption and produce less torque on the implants. ...
Article
Full-text available
Aim: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effect of round versus milled bar attachments on the retention of implant supported maxillary overdenture. Material and methods: An acrylic resin model of an edentulous maxilla without alveolar undercut was fabricated and four laboratory implant analogs were inserted in the canine and second premolar areas. Mucosal simulation was prepared over model. The implants were attached by bar attachment. According to the types of bar attachment were classified into two groups: Group I: Round bar attachment (Control group).Group II: milled bar attachment. (Test group). Maxillary experimental overdentures were made. The UTM was used to measure dislodging forces at the beginning of the study (initial retention) and after 540 cycles of denture insertion and removal (final retention). Then the Statistical was analysis. Results: The initial and final retention forces after repeated insertion and removals for vertical dislodging force, Rounded bar recorded the higher retentive force than milled bar. Conclusion: Rounded bar recorded significant higher retentive forces compared to milled bar. KEY WORDS: Implant overdenture, Bar attachment, Retention test.
... One is the studtype part made of plastic (male portion) and inserted into the denture such that only the head of the stud is visible. The other part is the concave metal part (female porion), made of stainless steel, whose surface is coated with a compound of titanium to increase its hardness and decrease its abrasion (James, 1998a). ...
Article
This paper primarily compares retention among three types of stud attachments of dentures and analyzes the stress associated with polarized photoelasticity to eluci-date the stress distribution of various implants near the ambient surface of an implant under different conditions of loading on the prosthetics of a tooth. The experimental results yield many significant data. Using the two-force principle to measure the retention of attachments yields two important areas of results. Under dry conditions, the O-ring attachment has the largest retention force. While under wet conditions, the Zest attachment has the largest retention force. The photoelastic method is applied to analyze the stress distribution on the arch mandible. When the implants are loaded, the magnetic attachment will generate the largest stresses on the implant. The stresses associated with the Zest attachment are the smallest and can be neglected. Concerning the materials of the experimental arch model, PL-2 photoelastic birefringent material is used to make the experimental arch model, which is similar to the true arch mandible. PSM-1 photoelastic birefringent material is used to make a semicircular model, which is easier to manufacture and is also used to simulate the human mandible. The experimental results indicate that the stresses in the PL-2 arch model are concentrated on the bottom of the implant, and those in the PSM-1 are on the circumference of the implant approximately one-third of the height from the bottom. The stress on the PL-2 arch model clearly exceeds that on the PSM-1 arch model. The PL-2 arch model more closely captures the practical clinical situation because its implant is imbedded in the alveolar bone with no clearance. Therefore, the PL-2 arch model is strongly recommended for future study.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the complications associated with the different attachments used in implant-supported overdentures, including prosthetic problems and implant failures. A comparison of ball, bar and Locator (Zest Anchors, Inc, homepage, Escondido, CA, USA) attachments, in completely edentulous patients with two, three or four implants, was conducted. A total of 36 edentulous patients (20 female, 16 male) with a mean age of 66.3 years, were enrolled in the study. The patients were treated with 95 implants, for the prosthetic restoration of the maxilla or the mandible. The mean follow-up time was 41.17 months. Prosthetic complications including, fractured overdentures, replacements of O-ring attachment and retention clips, implant failures, hygiene problems, mucosal enlargements, attachment fractures, retention loss and dislodgement of the attachments were recorded and evaluated. The recall visits at 3, 6, 12 months and, annually thereafter. Fourteen complications in the ballattachment group and 7 complications in the bar group were observed. No complications were observed in the locator group. The difference was found to be as statistically significant (p=0,009). Six of the 95 implants had failed. Totally 39 implant overdentures were applied. Three prostheses were renewed because of fractures. Within the limits of the present study, it was concluded that the locator system showed superior clinical results than the ball and the bar attachments, with regard to the rate of prosthodontic complications and the maintenance of the oral function.
Article
This article discusses the occlusal concepts when making implant-supported and implant-retained mandibular overdentures. The dentate or edentulous condition of the maxilla plays a significant role in this respect. If the maxilla is edentulous, balanced occlusion is indicated. In a maxillary Kennedy class I or II situation, either group function or balanced occlusion is advocated depending on the characteristics of the opposing dentition. When a complete dentition is present in the maxilla or in the case of a Kennedy class III or IV situation, mutually protected occlusion or group function is recommended depending on the length, position, and number of implants. It is stressed that detailed preimplant placement diagnosis and treatment planning are essential to obtain a high standard of treatment with overdentures supported and retained by implants.
Article
Three indications for implant-supported overdentures are defined, namely, the edentulous maxilla, the edentulous mandible, and the compromised situation. These indications for overdentures are related to three patient groups: (1) a younger segment of patients among the older population with maxillary complete dentures, (2) elderly completely edentulous patients who request better stabilization of the mandibular denture, and (3) patients with acquired or congenital defects. The aim of this article is to discuss treatment strategies and clinical considerations with respect to three specific indications for overdentures.
Article
Edentulous patients with a severely resorbed mandible often experience problems with their dentures. Treatment concepts involving two to four implants for the support of an overdenture have been proposed. The aim of this study was to develop a treatment concept for mandibular overdentures supported by endosseous implants based on a review of the literature. It is proposed that two implants supporting a mandibular overdenture (bar construction) are sufficient for most applications. Four implants were indicated in situations involving a dentulous maxilla, a narrow mandibular arch, extreme resorption of the mandible (bone height greater than 12 mm), and mandibular soreness and pain.
Article
The implant-retained overdenture for the mandible has been shown to be a highly successful prosthetic treatment similar to the fixed implant denture. However, controversy persists as to its design and indications. Few literature reviews have been published on the topic. This article critically analyzes the existing mandibular implant overdenture literature relative to bone preservation, effect on antagonist jaw, number of implants required, anchorage systems, maintenance, and patient satisfaction. A MEDLINE search was completed (from 1987 to 2001), along with a manual search, to locate relevant English-language articles on mandibular implant overdentures. Twelve treatment concepts are elucidated from a distillation of the literature review.