Journal of Oral Implantology June 2013 - (Page 302)
RESEARCH
Mandibular Implant-Supported Overdenture: An In Vitro
Comparison of Ball, Bar, and Magnetic Attachments
V. Manju, MDS*
T. Sreelal, MDS
In an implant-supported overdenture, the optimal stress distribution on the implants and least denture
displacement is desirable. This study compares the load transfer characteristics to the implant and the
movement of overdenture among 3 different types of attachments (ball-ring, bar-clip, and magnetic). Stress on
the implant surface was measured using the strain-gauge technique and denture displacement by dial gauge.
The ball/O-ring produces the optimal stress on the implant body and promotes denture stability.
Key Words: overdenture, ball and ring, bar and clip, magnetic attachment
INTRODUCTION
T
raditional mandibular dentures have
limited retention and stability as they
rest on the moving foundation provided
by the mandible and its associated
musculature. In the maxilla, the ability
to cover a broader foundation presents the
opportunity to fabricate a more retentive and stable
denture.
Implant-supported overdentures are mainly
useful for mandibular ridges, as they have undergone resorption and offer better retention than
traditional dentures. However, the cost of implants
is quite high; hence, the use of fewer implants (2
instead of 4) offers a less expensive option for an
edentulous patient.1 Nevertheless, stability cannot
be compromised and should be given equal
consideration.
Placement of the implants for overdentures in
the mandible should be planned explicitly, as
masticatory load transmission in mandibular implant-supported overdentures differs substantially
from that of implant-supported fixed restorations.2
In general, an implant should be loaded through
axial forces. Importance should also be given to
location and the number of implants being placed
Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kochi, Kerala, India.
* Corresponding author, e-mail: drmanjuv@gmail.com
DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00050
302
Vol. XXXIX /No. Three / 2013
in the dental arch, as well as the chewing function
as horizontal forces and even moments can cause
implant failure if these are ignored.
Mandibular implant-supported overdentures are
generally retained by at least 2 implants, which are
placed in, or slightly medial to, the canine area.3 The
commonly used forms of anchorage include ball
attachments,4 clips on a bar connecting the
implants,5 and magnetic attachments.6
Overdenture stability is a key factor for patient
satisfaction7 and is dependent on the ability of the
implants to withstand occlusal loads. It is hence
important to ascertain whether implants need to be
splinted together or whether freestanding implants
alone can withstand the loads.
The present in vitro study compared the load
transfer characteristics to the implant and the
movement of implant-supported overdentures
among the 3 different types of attachments (ball
and ring, clips on a bar, and magnetic).
The objectives of the study were to compare the
following:
Strain around the implant at the loading side and
the nonloading side
Bending moment transferred from the implant
into the bone
Denture displacement in mediolateral, upwarddownward, and backward-forward directions
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Journal of Oral Implantology June 2013
Congratulations to Duke Heller, DDS, MS—Pioneer, Teacher, and Mentor
In Vitro Analysis of Resistance to Cyclic Load and Preload Distribution of Two Implant/ Abutment Screwed Connections
Mandibular Implant-Supported Overdenture: An In Vitro Comparison of Ball, Bar, and Magnetic Attachments
An Exploratory Study on Assessment of Gingival Biotype and Crown Dimensions as Predictors for Implant Esthetics Comparing Caucasian and Indian Subjects
A New Approach to the All-on-Four Treatment Concept Using Narrow Platform NobelActive Implants
Regular and Switching Platform: Bone Stress Analysis With Varying Implant Diameter
Comparison Between Immediate and Delayed Laser-Treated Implants Surface With Switching Platform: A Clinical Retrospective Study
Effect of a Multiporous Beta–Tricalicum Phosphate on Bone Density Around Dental Implants Inserted Into Fresh Extraction Sockets
The Effect of Varying Implant Position in Immediately Loaded Implant-Supported Mandibular Overdentures
Bone Regeneration Around Immediate Implants Utilizing a Dense Polytetrafluoroethylene Membrane Without Primary Closure: A Report of 3 Cases
Socket Preservation and Sinus Augmentation Using a Medical Grade Calcium Sulfate Hemihydrate and Mineralized Irradiated Cancellous Bone Allograft Composite
Implant Placement and Immediate Loading With Fixed Restorations in Augmented Sockets. Five-Year Results. A Case Report
Immediate Placement and Provisionalization With Buccal Plate Preservation: A Case Report of a New Technique
Clinical Importance of Recipient Site Characteristics for Vertical Ridge Augmentation: A Systematic Review of Literature and Proposal of a Classification
Postextraction Implant in Sites With Endodontic Infection as an Alternative to Endodontic Retreatment: A Review of Literature
Letter to the Editor
Journal of Oral Implantology June 2013
http://www.brightcopy.net/allen/orim/Glossary
https://www.nxtbook.com/allen/orim/40-6
https://www.nxtbook.com/allen/orim/40-5
https://www.nxtbook.com/allen/orim/40-4
https://www.nxtbook.com/allen/orim/40-s1
https://www.nxtbook.com/allen/orim/40-3
https://www.nxtbook.com/allen/orim/40-2
https://www.nxtbook.com/allen/orim/40-1
https://www.nxtbook.com/allen/orim/39-6
https://www.nxtbook.com/allen/orim/39-5
https://www.nxtbook.com/allen/orim/39-4
https://www.nxtbook.com/allen/orim/39-3
https://www.nxtbook.com/allen/orim/39-s1
https://www.nxtbook.com/allen/orim/39-2
https://www.nxtbook.com/allen/orim/39-1
https://www.nxtbook.com/allen/orim/38-6
https://www.nxtbook.com/allen/orim/38-5
https://www.nxtbook.com/allen/orim/38-s1
https://www.nxtbook.com/allen/orim/38-4
https://www.nxtbook.com/allen/orim/38-3
https://www.nxtbook.com/allen/orim/38-2
https://www.nxtbook.com/allen/orim/38-1
https://www.nxtbookmedia.com