Load Transfer Characteristics of Various Designs of Three-Implant–Retained Mandibular Overdentures

Abstract

This assignment applies to all translations of the Work as well as to preliminary display/posting of the abstract of the accepted article in electronic form before publication. If any changes in authorship (order, deletions, or additions) occur after the manuscript is submitted, agreement by all authors for such changes must be on file with the Publisher. An author's name may be removed only at his/her written request. (Note: Material prepared by employees of the US government in the course of their official duties cannot be copyrighted.

Evaluation of Effect of Impression Techniques to Satisfaction of Edentulous Patients Treated With Implant-Retained Overdentures: A Pilot Study

“…Structure, number, location, and inclination of the implants, supporting alveolar crests, and soft tissue areas, type of attachments can be influenced load distribution characteristics. 13,14 The clinicians take into account efficient tissue support to produce IROs as well as conventional complete dentures. 16 Furthermore, passive fit between the implants and the overdentures ensures equal load distribution to the implants and the denture bearing areas.…”

“…9,11 The choice of attachment design depends on bone morphology, capability of stress distribution, desired retention value, patient expectations, cost, and soft tissue pain. [12][13][14] Moreover, differences of resiliency between the residual ridge mucosa and the implant have to be taken into account for selection of the attachment type. 15 Accuracy of the impression is crucial to achieve passive fit between the implants and the denture framework.…”

Üç-implant-destekli mandibular overdenture protezlerde çeşitli bar tasarımlarının stres iletim karakterlerinin değerlendirilmesi

“…23 Çelik ve Uludağ'ın 12 yapmış olduğu fotoelastik stres analizi çalışmasında bar-ball tasarımı en az stres oluşturmuştur. İmplantların açılı olarak yerleştirildiği modelde implantların birbirlerine splintlendiği tasarımlar olan bar ve bar-ball tutucu tasarımlarında düşük stres gözlenirken, stud tutucu tasarımlarında orta derecede stres bulgusuna rastlanıldığı bildirilmiştir.…”

A Comparative Evaluation of Stress Distribution with Two Attachment Systems of Varying Heights in a Mandibular Implant‐Supported Overdenture: A Three‐Dimensional Finite Element Analysis

“…They have been shown to transmit lesser stress onto the supporting structures as compared to bar attachments . However, there is no consensus on the superiority of the attachment system to be used for retaining the overdentures …”

“…22,23 However, there is no consensus on the superiority of the attachment system to be used for retaining the overdentures. [24][25][26] The Locator attachment system, introduced by Zest Anchors in 2001, is a relatively new type of stud attachment. Its low profile design is responsible for its increasing popularity in patients with limited interocclusal space.…”