An in vitro investigation into retention strength and fatigue resistance of various designs of tooth/implant supported overdentures

Abstract

Previously, the choice of prosthetic implant-retained overdentures has depended on data from previous studies about the retention-fatigue strength of the attachment system selected. Little or no data have been available on the correlation between the attachment system selected and the overdenture support configuration. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the retention force and fatigue resistance of three attachment systems and four support designs of overdenture prosthesis. Four lower edentulous acrylic models were prepared and eight combinations of attachments groups were investigated in the study. These included: O-Rings with mini-dental implants (MDIs), Dalbo elliptic with Dalbo Rotex and fabricated flexible acrylic attachments with both MDI and Dalbo Rotex. The study was divided into four test groups: groups A and B, controls, and groups C and D, experimental groups. Control group A contained three overdenture supports: two free standing MDIs in the canine region and at the midline, and one simulated tooth root with Dalbo Rotex screwed in. Control group B contained four overdenture support foundations: two free standing MDIs in the right canine region and the first premolar region, and two simulated tooth roots with Dalbo Rotex screwed in at the same MDI position, but on the left side of the model. Experimental group C contained three overdenture support foundations: two free standing MDIs in the canine region and at the midline, and one simulated tooth root with MDI screwed in. Experimental group D contained four overdenture support foundations: two free standing MDIs in the right canine region and the first premolar region, and two simulated tooth roots with MDIs screwed in at the same MDI position, but on the left side of the model. Each group was further divided into two subgroups according to attachment type used. Five samples were prepared for each group. Retention force (N) values were recorded initially (0 cycles) and after 360, 720, 1440 and 2880 insertion and removal cycles. During the tensile test a cross-head speed of 10 mm/min was applied. Values of absolute force (AF) and relative force (RF) were statistically analyzed by two-way ANOVA and multiple comparison Tukey’s tests between groups and cycles periods. The results of fatigue tests showed a 50% reduction in retention force in the subgroups with flexible attachments. A triangular design of overdenture support foundations with O-Ring attachments revealed the lowest value of AF and a relatively high reduction in RF. The four overdenture support designs with flexible acrylic attachments improved the retention force and reduced the fatigue retention. Furthermore, the results of the investigation demonstrate that flexible acrylic attachments for both teeth and implant-supported overdentures offer a wide range of retention forces.

Keywords

mini-dental implant / simulated tooth / flexible acrylic / overdenture attachments / overdenture retention

References

[1] Mericske-SternR.. Overdentures with roots or implants for elderly patients: A comparison. J Prosthet Dent, 1994, 72(5): 543-550

[2] WöstmannB., Budtz-JørgensenE., JepsonN., et al.. Indications for removable partial dentures: A literature review. Int J Prosthodont, 2005, 18(2): 139-145

[3] KaufmannR., FriedliM., HugS., et al.. Removable dentures with implant support in strategic positions followed for up to 8 years. Int J Prosthodont, 2009, 22(3): 233-241

[4] DoukasD., MichelinakisG., SmithP.W., et al.. The influence of interimplant distance and attachment type on the retention characteristics of mandibular overdentures on 2 implants: 6-month fatigue retention values. Int J Prosthodont, 2008, 21(2): 152-154

[5] SetzI., LeeS.H., EngelE.. Retention of prefabricated attachments for implant stabilized overdentures in the edentulous mandible: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent, 1998, 80(3): 323-329

[6] PetropoulosV.C., SmithW.. Maximum dislodging forces of implant overdenture stud attachments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2002, 17(4): 526-535

[7] Van KampenF., CuneM., Van der BiltA., et al.. Retention and postinsertion maintenance of bar-clip, ball and magnet attachments in mandibular implant overdenture treatment: an in vivo comparison after 3 months of function. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2003, 14(6): 720-726

[8] VisserA., MeijerH., RaghoebarG.M., et al.. Implant-retained mandibular overdentures versus conventional dentures: 10 years of care and aftercare. Int J Prosthodont, 2006, 19(3): 271-278

[9] LiddelowG.J., HenryP.J.. A prospective study of immediately loaded single implant-retained mandibular overdentures: Preliminary one-year results. J Prosthet Dent, 2007, 97(6Suppl): S126-37

[10] MarzolaR., ScottiR., FaziG., et al.. Immediate loading of two implants supporting a ball attachment-retained mandibular overdenture: A prospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2007, 9(3): 136-143

[11] ChungK.H., ChungC.Y., CagnaD.R., et al.. Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont, 2004, 13(4): 221-226

[12] WilliamsB.H., OchiaiK.T., HojoS., et al.. Retention of maxillary implant overdenture bars of different designs. J Prosthet Dent, 2001, 86(6): 603-607

[13] BotegaD.M., MesquitaM.F., HenriquesG.E., et al.. Retention force and fatigue strength of overdenture attachment systems. J Oral Rehabil, 2004, 31(9): 884-889

[14] OhyaK., KanazawaM., MinakuchiS.. Retentive force of stress breaking attachments on maxillary implant overdentures. J Prosthod Res, 2009, 53(2): 78-82

[15] ZarbG., BolenderC., EckertS., et al.. . Prosthodontic treatment for edentulous patients: complete dentures and implant-supported prostheses, 200312th ed.St. Louis, Mosby, 417-418

[16] OrtegonS.M., ThompsonG.A., AgarJ.R., et al.. Retention forces of spherical attachments as a function of implant and matrix angulation in mandibular overdentures: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent, 2009, 101(4): 231-238

[17] BurnsD.R., UngerJ.W., ElswickR.K.Jr, et al.. Prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures: part II-patient satisfaction and preference. J Prosthet Dent, 1995, 73(4): 364-369

[18] WaltonJ.N., RuseN.D.. In vitro changes in clips and bars used to retain implant overdentures. J Prosthet Dent, 1995, 74(5): 482-486

[19] BreedingL.C., DixonD.L., SchmittS.. The effect of simulated function on the retention of bar-clip retained removable prostheses. J Prosthet Dent, 1996, 75(5): 570-573

[20] EpsteinD.D., EpsteinP.L., CohenB.I., et al.. Comparison of the retentive properties of six prefabricated post overdenture attachment systems. J Prosthet Dent, 1999, 82(5): 579-584

[21] GamborenaJ.I., HazeltonL.R., NaBadalungD., et al.. Retention of ERA direct overdenture attachments before and after fatigue loading. Int J Prosthodont, 1997, 10(2): 123-130

[22] Mericske-SternR., PiottiM., SirtesG.. 3-D in vivo force measurements on mandibular implants supporting overdentures. A comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res, 1996, 7(4): 387-396

[23] EkfeldtA., JohanssonL.A., IsakssonS.. Implant-supported overdenture therapy: a retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont, 1997, 10(4): 366-374