Indian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental Research
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
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.

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
    PDF Downloaded18    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal