Indian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental Research
HOME | ABOUT US | EDITORIAL BOARD | AHEAD OF PRINT | CURRENT ISSUE | ARCHIVES | INSTRUCTIONS | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISE | CONTACT
Indian Journal of Dental Research   Login   |  Users online: 1293

Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size         

 


 
ORIGINAL RESEARCH Table of Contents   
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 31  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 414-419
Impact of implants number and attachment type on the peri-implant stresses and retention of palateless implant-retained overdenture


Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Prof. Nesreen El Mekawy
68 El-Gomhoreya Street, Mansoura
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_772_18

Rights and Permissions

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of implants number and attachments type on the peri-implant stresses and retention of maxillary palateless implant-supported overdenture. Materials and Methods: Four edentulous maxillary educational acrylic resin models were used. According to the implants number and type of attachment used, four groups were compared: Group I, 2-locator attachments in the canine area; Group II, 2- OT equator attachments in the canine area; Group III, 4-locator attachments in the canine, second premolar area and Group IV, 4-OT equator attachments in the canine, second premolar area. Implants retained palateless overdenture was constructed on each model. Four self-protected linear strain gauges were cemented on each implant. A digital loading device was used to apply compressive loads to measure the resulting peri-implant stresses. Forcemeter and Universal testing machines were used to test the retention of palateless overdenture. Results: A significant difference between the same implant number and distribution with different attachments was found (P = 0.003, P = 0.020), respectively. Least stresses amount was found around the 4-implant locator palateless overdenture, while the highest was found around the 2-implant OT equator palateless overdenture. Nevertheless; the result was that 2-implant locator palateless overdenture recorded insignificant higher retentive forces than the 4-implant OT equator one. Conclusions: It can be concluded that the implant-retained palateless overdenture with four locator attachments is considered a promising treatment option regarding stress distribution. Using locator attachments, for implant-retained palateless overdenture with either two or four implants considering their superior retentive properties, is advantageous when compared to OT equator attachments.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article

 
 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
  Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
  Reader Comments
  Email Alert *
  Add to My List *
 
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed165    
    Printed1    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded18    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal