Sadig Walid
Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Quintessence Int. 2009 Apr;40(4):313-9.
Implant-supported overdentures have become the treatment of choice in restoring complete edentulism, but the number of implants required and type of connectors to assure retention and stability are still controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of connector type and implant number and location on the retention and stability of implant-supported overdentures by measuring retentive forces during vertical and 2 types of rotational dislodgment.
Two model designs were selected based on the number and location of the inserted implants: In a first setup, 2 implants were placed in the canine regions; in a second setup, 2 implants were placed in the canine regions and 2 in the premolar regions. Three types of connector were used in each model: magnets, balls, and locators; 10 resin bases were fabricated and 3 hooks fixed at tripodal locations for chain testing. Vertical dislodging forces and 2 aspects (oblique and posterior rotational dislodging forces) of stability were tested.
Two-way analysis of variance showed significant differences in retention among the 3 connectors in the 2 models, with the lowest values obtained with the magnet group (mean [SD]: 2.15 N [0.09]) and highest values with the locator group (31.30 N [0.12]). Posterior rotational dislodging forces showed higher values than vertical or lateral forces in both models; 4-implant models required higher dislodging forces than did 2-implant models.
Locator connectors provide significantly higher retention and stability of implant-supported overdentures, followed by ball connectors and then magnets. The 2-implant design offers less retention and stability than the 4-implant model. Number of implants and type of connector significantly affected retention and stability of implant-supported overdentures.
种植体支持的覆盖义齿已成为修复全口无牙颌的首选治疗方法,但所需种植体的数量以及确保固位和稳定性的连接体类型仍存在争议。本研究的目的是通过测量垂直和两种旋转脱位过程中的固位力,评估连接体类型、种植体数量和位置对种植体支持覆盖义齿固位和稳定性的影响。
根据植入种植体的数量和位置选择两种模型设计:在第一种设置中,在尖牙区域植入2枚种植体;在第二种设置中,在尖牙区域植入2枚种植体,在前磨牙区域植入2枚。每个模型使用三种类型的连接体:磁体、球和定位器;制作10个树脂基托,并在三脚架位置固定3个挂钩用于链测试。测试垂直脱位力和稳定性的两个方面(斜向和后向旋转脱位力)。
双向方差分析显示,两种模型中三种连接体之间的固位力存在显著差异,磁体组获得的值最低(均值[标准差]:2.15 N[0.09]),定位器组的值最高(31.30 N[0.12])。在两种模型中,后向旋转脱位力均高于垂直或侧向力;4种植体模型比2种植体模型需要更高的脱位力。
定位器连接体为种植体支持的覆盖义齿提供了显著更高的固位和稳定性,其次是球连接体,然后是磁体。2种植体设计比4种植体模型提供的固位和稳定性更低。种植体数量和连接体类型显著影响种植体支持覆盖义齿的固位和稳定性。