Photoelastic stress analysis of various retention mechanisms on 3-implant-retained mandibular overdentures

Celik, Gozde; Uludağ, Bülent

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2007.02.006

Cited by 114 publications

(163 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

120

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The bar-clip system was responsible for a greater stress concentration on the anterior region, where the implants were placed. 21 Similar results were reported by Thayer and Caputo in 1977, 22 when they described a stress concentration along the posterior ridges and a higher stress concentration on the root apex because the overdenture was retained using the Dolder bar system.…”

Section: 2supporting

confidence: 80%

“…20,21 The areas analyzed in both groups were the mesial, distal and apical regions from each implant and the right and left edentulous ridges from each group.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The difference in stress concentrations, when compared to the posterior edentulous ridges and the anterior region, could be explained by load application having occurred vertically on the overdenture occlusal plane. 21 Kenney and Richards 13 concluded that the greater stress concentration on the anterior region, where the implants were placed, was due to their being joined by a bar-clip retention system, which transmitted a greater stress concentration to the supporting tissue, compared to the posterior alveolar ridge. Ochiai et al, 5 in 2004, compared stress transmission to the alveolar ridge when overdentures were retained by bar-clip and O-ring retention systems.…”

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Photoelastic stress analysis in mandibular bone surrounding bar-clip overdenture implants

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate, using the photoelastic analysis method, the stress distribution in mandibular bone surrounding a bar-clip overdenture when 2 implant angulations were simulated. Two mandibular photoelastic models were manufactured, with 2 implants embedded in the interforaminal region: model 1 -PAPI, a photoelastic analysis model with parallel implants; and model 2 -PAAI, a photoelastic analysis model with angled implants. A bar-clip retention system and an overdenture were positioned over the implants, and loads of 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 bars were applied. The resultant stresses that developed in the supporting structure were photoelastically monitored and were recorded photographically. The results showed that there were no similarities in the areas of stress among the photoelastic resin models when the angulation of the implants was evaluated. Model 1 -PAPI presented a higher stress concentration at the implant apex, while in model 2 -PAAI, there were higher stress concentrations on the mesial and distal implant faces. Within the limitations of this study, it was concluded that the PAPI photoelastic model demonstrated better stress transfer compared to the PAAI model, since the forces oriented along the axis were better absorbed by the bone.

show abstract

Section: 2supporting

confidence: 80%

“…20,21 The areas analyzed in both groups were the mesial, distal and apical regions from each implant and the right and left edentulous ridges from each group.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Photoelastic stress analysis in mandibular bone surrounding bar-clip overdenture implants

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar observations were previously reported (16,17,26,35,36), wherein the tilting of single implants was associated with increased peri-implant bone stresses compared with stresses observed around vertical implants. This increase in strain may be attributed to the double frictional flanges of the male nylon inserts, which provide limited hinge movement (8°) during posterior load application on the denture saddles (37,38). Moreover, Locator abutments feature internal and external undercuts, which resist removal of the resilient patrix insert.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peri-implant strain around mesially inclined two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures with Locator attachments

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to evaluate the periimplant strain around mesially inclined implants used to retain mandibular overdentures with Locator resilient attachments. Four mandibular edentulous acrylic resin models received two implants in the canine areas with 0°, 5°, 10°, and 20° mesial inclinations. Overdentures were connected to the implants using Locator attachments. Pink nylon inserts (light retention) were used for all implant inclinations, and red inserts were used for 20° inclination (20°red). Four strain gages were bonded on the mesial (M), distal (D), buccal (B), and lingual (L) surfaces of each implant. Peri-implant strains were measured during bilateral and unilateral loading. The 20° inclination showed the highest strain, followed by 10° and 5°, and both 0° and 20°red presented with the lowest strain. Site D was associated with the highest strain, followed by M, B, and L, which showed the lowest strain values. Unilateral loading and the loading side presented with significantly higher strain values than bilateral loading and the nonloading side, respectively. Hence, in this study, strains around the two-implant-retained overdentures with Locator attachments increased with increases in mesial implant angulation, except when red male inserts were used.

show abstract

“…6,12 Tercih edilen tutucu sistemin tutuculuk ve stabilite özelliklerinin yanı sıra stres dağılımına olan etkisi de düşünülmelidir.…”

Section: 5unclassified

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

Tokar

Polat

Uludağ³

2017

Acta Odontologica Turcica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[Abstract in English is at the end of the manuscript] GİRİŞİmplant-destekli overdenture protezler (İDO) tam dişsizlik olgularında konvansiyonel tam protezlere alternatif olarak kullanılan etkili bir tedavi seçeneğidir. Hatta günümüzde, tam dişsiz alt çeneler için implantdestekli overdenture'lerin ilk seçenek olarak hastaya sunulması tavsiye edilmektedir. 1-3Alt çenede overdenture protezler için iki veya daha fazla implanttan destek alınması önerilmektedir. 4,5Üç veya daha fazla sayıda implanttan destek alınarak hazırlanan overdenture protezlerde tutuculuk ve stabilitenin daha iyi olduğu ifade edilmektedir. 6İmplant-destekli overdenture için kullanılan hassas tutucu çeşitleri temel olarak dört ana başlıkta incelenebilir. Bunlar; bar, stud, manyetik ve teleskopik tutuculardır. 7Bu hassas tutucu çeşitleri vakanın durumuna göre tek başlarına kullanılabilirken, birbirleriyle kombine şekilde de kullanılabilmektedir. 8,9Diş hekimleri genellikle İDO vakalarında bar veya stud tutucuları tercih etmektedirler.7,10 Bar tutucular, tek başlarına kullanılabilecekleri gibi stud tutucularla kombine edilerek de kullanılabilirler. Bu tip tutucular hem esnek hem de rijit tasarıma olanak vermesi sebebiyle İDO vakalarında geniş bir kullanım alanına sahiptirler.11 Kullanılacak hassas tutucu seçiminde alveol kemiği, kas bağlantılarının aktivitesi, tutuculuk, çiğneme kuvvetinin etkinliği ve hasta kaynaklı faktörler göz önünde bulundurulmalıdır.6,12 Tercih edilen tutucu sistemin tutuculuk ve stabilite özelliklerinin yanı sıra stres dağılımına olan etkisi de düşünülmelidir.Başarılı protetik tedavi için okluzal yükler, implantlar ve protez destek sahaları arasında dengeli olarak dağıtılmalıdır. Çünkü, aşırı yükler implant çevresindeki kemik rezorpsiyonunu tetikleyebilir, bu durum implant kaybına neden olabilir. Barların hazırlığında basamaklı destekler (Zimmer Dental) implant analoglarının üzerine yerleştirildikten sonra plastik dökülebilir parçalar (Zimmer Dental) bu desteklere vidalandı. Plastik parçaların boyları kısaltıldı ve plastik prefabrik barlar (Round Bar, Bredent GmbH, Senden, Almanya) implantlar arasındaki mesafeye uygun olarak kesilip mum ile plastik dökülebilir parçalara tutturuldu. Elde edilen bar modelajları modelden çıkartılıp, Co-Cr alaşımdan (Biosil, Degussa, Hanau, Almanya) dökümü yapıldı. Bar-locator ve barceka tasarımlarında hazırlanan bar modelajlarının distallerine bu stud tutucular lehimlendi. Tutucuların hazırlıkları tamamlandıktan sonra iskelet altyapı modelajları yapıldıktan sonra dökümleri gerçekleştirildi. Bar-galvano tasarımında, hazırlanan iskeletin iç yüzeyinde barın oturacağı alan elektroforming yöntemi ile altın kaplandı.Protezlerin aynı dizime sahip olması için referans bir diş dizimi yapıldı. Mufla içerisine konulan elastomerik ölçü maddesi (Zetaplus) ile diş diziminin ölçüsü alındı. Modellerdeki andırkatlar doldurulduktan sonra modeller lak ile izole edildi. Silikondan elde edilen diş dizimin negatifinin içine şeffaf akrilik rezin (Meliodent, Heraeus Kulzer GmbH, Gruner, Hanau Postfach, Almanya) konuld...

show abstract

Photoelastic stress analysis of various retention mechanisms on 3-implant-retained mandibular overdentures

Cited by 114 publications

References 26 publications

Photoelastic stress analysis in mandibular bone surrounding bar-clip overdenture implants

Photoelastic stress analysis in mandibular bone surrounding bar-clip overdenture implants

Peri-implant strain around mesially inclined two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures with Locator attachments

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About