Influence of Palatal Coverage and Implant Distribution on Implant Strain in Maxillary Implant Overdentures

Takahashi, Toyomi; Gonda, Tomoya; Mizuno, Yuji; Fujinami, Yozo; Maeda, Yasuhiro

doi:10.11607/jomi.4535

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two strain gauges were attached to each implant at buccal and lingual aspects only, as there was no enough distance to attach them mesially and distally around the implants inserted in canine and second premolar positions because of the near proximity of the implants to each other. Moreover Takahashi, et al 30 found that palate-labial strain on the implant was much higher than mediodistal strains.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Biomechanical studies have suggested that the main cause of bone resorption is implant overload [33][34][35] . Although the effect of reinforcement by several materials on denture base deformation and fracture was investigated in several studies 6,26,30 , the influence of type of reinforcement material on the peri-implant strains was not investigated sufficiently.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Peri-Implant Strains With Palateless Locator Retained Maxillary Implant Overdentures Reinforced With Either Metal or Poly Ether-Ether Ketone (Peek) Materials. An Invitro Study

Kortam

2020

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:The purpose of the present report was to assess, using strain gauge analysis, the peri-implant strains with palateless locator retained maxillary implant overdentures reinforced with either cobalt chromium metal or Poly ether-ether ketone (PEEK) materials.Material and methods: Four implants were installed in completely edentulous acrylic maxillary cast in canine and second premolar region and mucosal simulation was added. Two strain gauges were bonded at buccal and palatal surface of each implant. Ten experimental palateless maxillary overdentures, 5 with cobalt chromium metal reinforcement (group I) and other 5 with PEEK reinforcement (group II) were fabricated and connected to the implants with Locator attachments (Light retention). Strain was measured at canine and premolar implants during application of axial static load of 100 N in bilateral and unilateral direction.Results: For, canine and premolar implants during bilateral and unilateral load application, the median strains of metal reinforcement were significantly higher than median strains of PEEK reinforcement. For metal reinforcement group (during bilateral and unilateral loading), and PEEK reinforcement (during unilateral loading) premolar implant showed significant higher strain than canine implants. Premolar implants for metal reinforcement showed significant higher strain during unilateral loading compared to bilateral loading. Conclusion:Within restrictions of this invitro study, PEEK reinforcement is recommended than metal cobalt chromium reinforcement for palateless maxillary implant overdentures from biomechanical point of view as it achieved low peri-implant strains during unilateral and bilateral loading (1226)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peri-Implant Strains With Palateless Locator Retained Maxillary Implant Overdentures Reinforced With Either Metal or Poly Ether-Ether Ketone (Peek) Materials. An Invitro Study

Kortam

2020

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The gauges were placed in the buccolingual direction because there was no room for them in the mesiodistal direction around the implants inserted in canine and second premolar positions because of the near proximity of the implants to each other. 36 Moreover, Takahashi, et al 37 found that palatolabial strain was much higher on the implant than mediodistal strains. A 100 Newton force was applied to simulate the normal occlusal mastication forces and close to maximal loads for implant overdenture patients 34,[38][39][40] For major strain gauges of canine and premolar implants, telescopic attachment recorded significant higher microstrains than ball attachments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peri-implant strains with ball and telescopic attachments for implant supported maxillary overdentures. An invitro strain gauge analysis

Emarah

Mohamed

2022

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This invitro study evaluates peri-implant strains with ball and telescopic attachments for implant supported maxillary overdentures. Materials and methods:A model represent an edentulous maxillary ridge with 4 implants installed at both canine and second premolar areas was constructed. Experimental maxillary overdentures were fabricated and attached to the implants with rigid telescopic (TA, n=5), and ball (BA, n=5) attachments. Two strain gauges were bonded to the acrylic resin at buccal and palatal surfaces of each implant. Strains were measured during unilateral load application on the 1 st molar region of the right (loading) side. Mann-Whitney test was used to compare microstrains between groups (TA, and BA), implant positions (canine and premolar implants) and strain gauge positions (buccal and palatal gauges on right and left sides).Results: For all strain gauge positions of canine and premolar implants, TA showed significant higher microstrain than BA. For both groups, palatal loading side showed the highest microstrain for canine implants, and buccal loading side showed the highest microstrain for premolar implants. For palatal gauges on both sides, canine implants recorded significant higher strain than premolar implants. For buccal gauges on both sides, premolar implants recorded significant higher strain than canine implants. Conclusion:Within limitation of this invitro study, it could be concluded that, ball attachments are recommended to retain maxillary implant overdenture than telescopic attachments as it were associated with reduced peri-implant strain.

show abstract

“…However, a consensus is lacking regarding the adequate number of implants necessary to support a maxillary overdenture or the different anchorage systems used [8][9][10][11][12][13]. In addition, the impact of palatal coverage design, as well as the effect of implant splinting on the biomechanical behavior of implant-retained maxillary overdentures, is not clear in the literature [14][15][16][17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of Palatal Coverage on Implant Retained Maxillary Overdentures

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine stress levels on supporting structures of implant-retained overdentures as a function of varying degrees of palatal coverage using finite element analysis modeling at different loading angles. Materials and Methods: ABAQUS®-software was used to perform finite element analysis on eight overdenture models with three and four implants and with and without palatal coverage designs. Loads were applied perpendicular and 45º to the implants. Von Mises stress was measured to determine bone stress. A one-way ANOVA determined which model caused the most stress to the maxillary bone. Results: Palatal coverage increased stress to anterior implant in three implant (p = 0.08) models but decreased stress to all implants in four implant models (p = 0.43). Distal implants received more stress than anterior implants for all models. There was no significant difference between a full palate and no palate coverage overdenture prosthesis when a bar was added under axial loading (p = 0.954). Under non-axial loading, a decrease in stress was noted with the bar in all areas except the anterior implant site. Conclusions: Palatal coverage may not be necessary when applying a pure axial load. The addition of a bar decreased stress at loading.

show abstract

Influence of Palatal Coverage and Implant Distribution on Implant Strain in Maxillary Implant Overdentures

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Peri-Implant Strains With Palateless Locator Retained Maxillary Implant Overdentures Reinforced With Either Metal or Poly Ether-Ether Ketone (Peek) Materials. An Invitro Study

Peri-Implant Strains With Palateless Locator Retained Maxillary Implant Overdentures Reinforced With Either Metal or Poly Ether-Ether Ketone (Peek) Materials. An Invitro Study

Peri-implant strains with ball and telescopic attachments for implant supported maxillary overdentures. An invitro strain gauge analysis

Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of Palatal Coverage on Implant Retained Maxillary Overdentures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About