PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the retention of mini implant overdenture by the number, the type of magnetic attachment, and the directions of applied dislodging force. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The experimental groups were designed by the number and type of magnetic attachment. Twenty samples were tested with Magden implants. Each attachment was composed of the magnet assembly in overdenture sample and the abutment keeper in a mandibular model. Dislodging forces were applied to the overdenture samples (50.0 mm/min) in 3 directions. The loading was repeated 10 times in each direction. The values of dislodging force were analyzed statistically using SPSS at 95% level of confidence. RESULTS: The retentive force of group 2 was greater than that of group 1 in both types of attachment in every direction (P < .05). Oblique retentive force of flat type magnetic attachment was higher than that of cushion type attachment in both groups (P < .05). In group 1, oblique retentive force showed the highest and anterior-posterior retentive force showed the lowest value in both attachment types (P < .05). In group 2, both types of attachment showed the lowest retentive force with anteriorposterior direction of dislodging force (P <.05). CONCLUSION: Proper retentive properties for implant overdenture were obtained, regardless of the number and type of magnetic attachment. In both types of magnetic attachment, the greater retentive force was attained with more implants. Oblique retentive force of flat type magnetic attachment was greater than that of cushion type. Among all subgroups, anterior-posterior retentive force was the lowest among three different directions of dislodging force.
Denture, Overlay*

No abstract available.
Denture, Overlay*

No abstract available.
Denture, Overlay*

PURPOSE: The design of the attachment must provide an optimum stress distribution around the implant. In this study, for implant overdentures with a bar/clip attachment or a locator attachment, the stress transmitted to the implant in accordance with the change in the denture base length and the vertical pressure was measured and analyzed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Test model was created with epoxy resin. The strain gauges made a tight contact with implant surfaces. A universal testing machine was used to exert a vertical pressure on the mandibular implant overdenture and the strain rate of the implants was measured. RESULTS: Means and standard deviations of the maximum micro-deformation rates were determined. 1) Locator attachment: The implants on the working side generally showed higher strain than those on the non-working side. Tensile force was observed on the mesial surface of the implant on the working side, and the compressive force was applied to the buccal surface and on the surfaces of the implant on the non-working side. 2) Bar/clip attachment: The implants on the both non-working and working sides showed high strain; all surfaces except the mesial surface of the implant on the non-working side showed a compressive force. CONCLUSION: To minimize the strain on implants in mandibular implant overdentures, the attachment of the implant should be carefully selected and the denture base should be extended as much as possible.
Denture Bases* ; Denture, Overlay* ; Dentures*

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate, by means of strain gauge analysis, the effect of different implant angulations on strains around two implants retaining mandibular overdenture with Locator attachments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four duplicate mandibular acrylic models were constructed. Two implants were inserted in the canine regions using the following degrees of distal inclinations: group I (control); 0°, group II; 10°, group III; 20°, and group IV; 30°. Locator pink attachments were used to connect the overdenture to the implants and Locator red (designed for severely angled implants) was used for group IV (group IV(red)). For each group, two linear strain gauges were attached at the mesial and distal surfaces of the acrylic resin around each implant. Peri-implant strain was measured on loading and non-loading sides during bilateral and unilateral loading. RESULTS: For all groups, the mesial surfaces of the implants at loading and non-loading sides experienced compressive (negative) strains, while the distal implant surfaces showed tensile (positive) strains. Group IV showed the highest strain, followed by group III, group II. Both group I and group IV(red) showed the lowest strain. The strain gauges at the mesial surface of the loading side recorded the highest strain, and the distal surface at non-loading side showed the lowest strain. Unilateral loading recorded significantly higher strain than bilateral loading. CONCLUSION: Peri-implant strains around two implants used to retain mandibular overdentures with Locator attachments increase as distal implant inclination increases, except when red nylon inserts were used.
Denture, Overlay* ; Nylons

Three linear strain gauges (KFR-02N-120-C1-23, Kyowa, Japan) were placed around the abutment of implant fixture and the maximum axial loads on the mandibular implants supporting overdentures were registered in experimental model when the overdenture was removed. The overdenture attachments used in this study wee Round bar, Hader bar, Dolder bar with and without spacer. The retention of bar attachment was measured using universal testing machine while being controlled by Activating set and Deactivator except in case of the Hader bar. Simultaneously strains were recorded with the strain smart program in strain P-6000 series (Measurement group, Raleigh, USA). The maximum axial load was calculated and compared with each other. The results were as follows: 1. The amount and the timing of the maximum axial loads were different between the right and left implant in all attachment systems. 2. The retention of bar attachment except Hader bar could be adjusted but the controllability was different among the attachment systems. 3. The more the axial load, the higher the retention with Hader bar and Dolder bar without spacer. but the tendency of increase was not shown with round bar and Dolder bar with spacer.
Denture, Overlay* ; Models, Theoretical

Although many prosthetic materials exist for fabrication of implant-supported telescopic overdentures, available materials have not been thoroughly evaluated from a functional standpoint. This case report describes the use of polyaryletherketone (PAEK) based polymer for an implant-supported telescopic overdenture, a seldom used material in dentistry. This material is lighter than traditional materials, can accommodate changes in retentive forces, and is an easily retrievable by CAD/CAM fabrication. This case highlights the possibility of using new polymer materials for implant-supported telescopic overdentures.
Dentistry ; Denture, Overlay* ; Polymers*

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the stress distribution in the bone around dental implants supporting mandibular overdenture according to the number of implant and the type of attachment. Two or four implants were placed in an edentulous mandibular model and three dimensional photoelastic stress analysis was carried out to measure the fringe order around the implant supporting structure and also to calculate principle stress components at cervical area of each implant. The attachments tested were rigid and resilient type of Dolder bar, Round bar, Hader bar and Dal-Ro attachment. The results were as follows; 1. In 2-implant supported overdenture using Round bar, Hader bar, and Dal-Ro attachment, compressive stress pattern was observed on the supporting structure of implant on loaded side, while tensile stress pattern in unloaded side. 2. In 2-implant supported overdenture using Dolder bar, the rigid Dolder bar shared the occlusal loads between 2 implants in a more favorable manner than was exhibited by the resilient type, while the resilient type placed a more stress on the distocervical area of the implant on the loaded side. But compressive stress pattern was observed in both the loaded and unloaded sides in either case. 3. In 2-implant supported overdenture, rigid and resilient type of Dolder bar exhibited more cross arch involvement than the Round bar, Hader bar, or Dal-Ro attachment. 4. In 4-implant supported overdenture using resilient Dolder bar and Hader bar, stress turned out to be distributed evenly among the implants between loaded and unloaded side, but ther was no reduction in the magnitude of the stress in the surrounding structure of implant contratry to 2-implant supported overdenture.. 5. The stress pattern at cervical area of implant was different with the number of implant or the type of attachment but the overload, harmful to surrounding structure of implant, was not observed.
Dental Implants ; Denture, Overlay*

Stress distribution on mandibular implants supporting overdentures were registered in vitro experimental model by means of 4 rosette gauges which were placed around the implant. The overdenture attachments used in this study were the Resilient Dolder bar, Rigid Dolder bar, Round bar, Hader bar&Dal-Ro attachment. An occlusal jig was placed on the overdenture and the loading sites were 3 points which mimicked working, balancing, and median relations. With 5 and 10kg loading, strains were measured by strain indicator(P-3500, Measurement group, Raleigh, USA), and using these data, maximum and minimum principal stresses and Von Mises stress were calculated and evaluated. The results were as follows: There was a tendency of high stress concentration in the lingual side of the implant, and in the buccal side low stress was developed regardless of the attachment systems. The resilient Dolder bar concentrated highest stress among the attachment systems, and the Round bar and the Dal-Ro attachment provided comparatively low stresses around the implant. The rigid Dolder bar concentrated high stress in the mesial side, and the Dal-Ro attachment developed tensile stress patterns in the lingual and distal sides of the implant at the balancing relation.
Denture, Overlay* ; Models, Theoretical

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of type of magnet attachment and implant angulation in two implant overdenture models.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Magnet attachments used in this study were flat and dome types (MGT5515, MGT5520D, Dentium Co., Seoul, Korea). Two implants with keepers were inserted in the resin blocks at a distance of 24 mm. For the first model, the implants were parallel to the vertical and perpendicular to the horizontal; for the second model, both were angulated 5 degrees to the mesial; for the third model, both were angulated 10 degrees toward the mesial. The retentive force was measured in both vertical and lateral directions. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software version 22.0 (α=.05).RESULTS: The flat type magnet attachment showed the highest lateral retentive force in the 20° divergent group (P<.05) and the dome type magnet attachment showed the highest lateral retentive force in the parallel group (P<.05). The vertical and lateral retentive force of the dome type magnet attachment was greater than that of the flat type magnet attachment in every direction (P<.05).CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the dome shape magnet attachment can resist vertical and lateral retentive force more superiorly than the flat type magnet attachment, regardless of angle, in the mandibular two implant model.
Denture, Overlay ; Seoul