Effects of Low-Profile Stud Attachment Configurations on Stress Distribution Characteristics of Implant-Retained Overdentures

Tokar, Emre; Uludağ, Bülent

doi:10.11607/jomi.6207

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the literature, stresses on implants in ISOD prostheses are usually determined by PESA. [27][28][29][32][33][34][35]38,39 The photoelastic mandible model used in current study consisted of integration of the implants with the epoxy resin, which simulates the bone tissue and also impression material in the ISOD to represent the mucosa around the stud attachments. 32,34 The absence of differences between cortical and trabecular bone, despite the resin being used to produce photoelastic mandible models with a modulus of elasticity similar to bone tissue, might modify the magnitude of the stress concentrations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This method aimed to prevent the stresses that might occur during the preparation of the nest in the photoelastic models. In many previous studies [27][28][29][32][33][34][35]38,39,41 the mucosa around the implants located in the anterior region was eliminated, and artificial mucosa material was placed only in the posterior region under the prosthesis. This study was designed to provide conditions closer to the oral environment by using artificial mucosa to mimic material around the anterior implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This technique has been extensively used to investigate the interaction of tissue response and stress distribution among implant-bone prosthetic restorations and physical properties of implants in dentistry. [27][28][29] Several studies have evaluated stress distribution between the same heights of attachments using FEA 1,5 and SG; 30 the effects of implant angulation and prostheses connection have also been investigated, 31 but there is no study that evaluates different heights of attachments by using PESA. Therefore, the aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of different heights of attachments and mucosa thickness for two different ISODs, namely, the ball and locator attachment (Figure 1), on the vertical pressure and stresses around the implant surface bone under unilateral loading on overdenture prostheses using PESA method.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effect of mucosa thicknesses on stress distribution of implant-supported overdentures under unilateral loading: Photoelastic analysis

Ozyilmaz

Aykent

Özel

2019

Journal of Applied Biomaterials & Functional Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different heights of attachment and mucosa thicknesses on the stress distribution of two implant-retained mandibular overdenture designs under loading using the photoelastic stress analysis method. Materials and methods: Six photoelastic models of an edentulous mandibula were fabricated with two solitary implants that were placed in the canine regions. The attachment systems studied were ball and locator stud attachments. Both the ball and locator groups included three models that had different residual ridge heights so as to provide different mucosa thicknesses (1 mm–1 mm, 1 mm–2 mm, 1 mm–4 mm). A static vertical force of 135 N was applied unilaterally (each on the right then the left side) to the central fossa of the first molars. Models were positioned in the field of a circular polariscope to observe the distribution of isochromatic fringes around the implants and the interimplant areas under loading. The photoelastic stress fringes were monitored and recorded photographically. Results: The ball attachment groups showed higher stress values than did the locator groups under loading. Both attachment systems produced the lowest stress values in stimulated 1 mm–1 mm mucosa thickness models. The models with 1 mm–2 mm mucosa thicknesses showed higher stress values than did other models for both attachment systems. The highest stress value observed around both attachment systems was the moderate level in all test models. Conclusion: In different height mucosa thicknesses, locator attachment models distributed the load to the other side of the implant and its surrounding tissue, whereas the ball attachment did not. Regardless of mucosal thickness and attachment type, the implant on the loading side was subjected to the highest stress concentration.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of mucosa thicknesses on stress distribution of implant-supported overdentures under unilateral loading: Photoelastic analysis

Ozyilmaz

Aykent

Özel

2019

Journal of Applied Biomaterials & Functional Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results of the current study revealed that the ball/socket attachment resulted in significantly higher retentive forces than the locator attachment at the insertion. This could be related to the rubber nitryl which used to make O-rings in the ball/socket attachments, which have elastic qualities, resistance to steel, compressive strength, and wear resistance (10). Cakarer et al (11) reported no difference between ball attachment and Locator systems regarding implant failure, replacement of attachments, and fracture of overdentures.…”

Section: Change In Retentive Values (%)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Retention force of Two Different Attachments for Mandibular Implant Supported Overdenture (A Comparative Study)

kotb,

Mamdouh,

Kamal

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: In an in vitro study, comparing the maximum retentive force of ball and socket attachments with locator attachments for mandibular implant-supported overdentures. Background: Dental implants have revolutionized the field of prosthodontics by offering a reliable and stable solution for patients with missing teeth. Among the various types of implant-supported overdentures, mandibular implant-supported overdentures are commonly used to improve function and esthetics for individuals with total edentulism in the mandible. Retention force is a crucial factor in the success of mandibular implant-supported overdentures, as it directly impacts the stability and comfort of the prosthesis. Materials and Methods: A comparative study was conducted on two groups of patients who received mandibular implant-supported overdentures with different attachment systems. Group A: received overdentures with Ball and socket attachment system, while Group B: received overdentures with Locator implant attachment system. The retention force of each attachment system was measured using a standardized testing protocol. The measurements were taken at different time points to assess the initial and long-term retention force of the attachments. A gradual increase in tension was observed, and the maximum force required to retain was calculated. The evaluation of retention will occur at baseline (T0) and after 3 months (T1), 6 months (T2), 9 months (T3), and one year (T4) of usage. Results: The study revealed that Attachment System Ball /Ring exhibited significantly higher retention force compared to Locator implant Attachment System in the initial term assessments. This difference in retention force could be attributed to the design and material properties of the two attachment systems. Locator implant Attachment System demonstrated superior retention force at the end term of assessment. Conclusion: Both types of attachment systems; Ball/O Ring and Locator attachments are trustworthy modalities for advancement the retention and stability of implant retained mandibular over denture with superior initial stability results for the Locator attachment.

show abstract

“…The use of a low-profile attachment, like Locator ® and OT Equator ® , may develop more useful alternative when prosthetic space is compromised and stress distribution required enhancing serviceability of implants [ 6 ]. Locator ® system is a self-aligning double retention cylinder which consists of an implant screw-metallic and metallic cap lined with nylon replacements with different colors according to their degree of retention.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Different Low-Profile Abutments for Assisting Mandibular Implant Overdenture: A Split-Mouth Study

Khalifa

Alokda

Said

2022

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Using a pair of different low-profile abutments to assist mandibular implant overdenture (MIOD) in limited restorative space is questionable due to the different morphology. Objective. To investigate the marginal bone level (MBL) change and peri-implant-tissue health (PITH) around a pair of OT Equator® and Locator® suprastructures assisting MIOD. Methods. Seventeen edentulous patients received MIOD assisted by OT Equator® and Locator®. MBL change was investigated at the implant loading (T1), after six months (T2) and twelve months (T3) of implant loading. PITH was evaluated at T2 and T3. Results. There was within abutment significant difference in MBL change after T2 and T3 of loading for Locator (0.05 ± 0.02 and 0.32 ± 0.08, respectively) P = 0.01 ; and for Equator (0.11 ± 0.08 and 0.21 ± 0.09, respectively) P = 0.01 . Also, there was a significant difference between Locator and Equator on the modified plaque index (MPI) after T3 P = 0.01 . The significant results were recorded for the MPI at T2 and T3 for Locator (0.92 ± 0.26 and 1.5 ± 0.51, respectively) P = 0.01 and for Equator (0.82 ± 0.26 and 1.42 ± 0.51, respectively) P = 0.003 . For modified bleeding index, there was significant difference at T2 and T3 for Locator (0.57 ± 0.19 and 1.14 ± 0.41, respectively) P = 0.03 and for Equator (0.46 ± 0.22 and 1.07 ± 0.41, respectively) P = 0.01 . For gingival index, there was significant difference at T2 and T3 for Locator (0.57 ± 0.11 and 1.28 ± 0.35, respectively) P = 0.001 and for Equator (0.35 ± 0.21 and 1.1 ± 0.46, respectively) P = 0.001 . Conclusions. Using different pairs of the low-profile OT Equator® and Locator® abutments to assist MIOD is clinically acceptable based on the MBL change and PITH outcomes.

show abstract

Effects of Low-Profile Stud Attachment Configurations on Stress Distribution Characteristics of Implant-Retained Overdentures

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Effect of mucosa thicknesses on stress distribution of implant-supported overdentures under unilateral loading: Photoelastic analysis

Effect of mucosa thicknesses on stress distribution of implant-supported overdentures under unilateral loading: Photoelastic analysis

Evaluation of Retention force of Two Different Attachments for Mandibular Implant Supported Overdenture (A Comparative Study)

Using Different Low-Profile Abutments for Assisting Mandibular Implant Overdenture: A Split-Mouth Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About