Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019 September/October;34(5):1213–1222. doi: 10.11607/jomi.7484. Epub 2019 Feb 19.
The aim of this crossover study was to evaluate electromyographic (EMG) connectivity of masseter muscle with different attachments used to retain implant overdentures in patients with atrophied mandibular ridges.
Twenty-four edentulous participants with atrophic mandibular ridges received conventional dentures (control). Three months after the adaptation period, two implants were placed in the canine areas of the mandible. After osseointegration, each participant was successively given the following prostheses in a crossover manner: (1) ball-retained overdentures, (2) bar-retained overdentures, and (3) -retained overdentures. The EMG parameters (amplitude, chewing area, chewing rate, duration of chewing cycle, duration of chewing burst, and chewing time) were measured 3 months after wearing the following prostheses: conventional dentures, ball overdentures, bar overdentures, and Locator overdentures. Measurements were made during chewing of hard (carrot) and soft (cake) foods.
The highest EMG activity/amplitude, chewing area, duration of chewing cycle, and duration of chewing burst were noted with ball overdentures, followed by bar overdentures and Locator overdentures, and the lowest values were observed with conventional dentures. The highest chewing rate and masticatory time were noted with conventional dentures and the lowest values were observed with ball overdentures. With the exception of chewing area, no significant differences in all tested parameters between bar overdentures and Locator overdentures were observed. Except for duration of chewing cycle, all tested parameters were significantly higher during chewing of hard food than soft food.
Within the limitations of this study, two-implant overdentures recorded higher muscle functions compared to conventional dentures regardless of the type of attachment used. For such overdentures, ball attachment may be recommended over bar and Locator attachments, as it was associated with improved muscle activity and function.
本交叉研究旨在评估不同附着体固位的种植覆盖义齿对下颌骨萎缩患者的咀嚼肌肌电图(EMG)连通性。
24 名下颌骨萎缩的无牙颌患者接受常规义齿(对照组)。适应期 3 个月后,在下颌犬齿区植入两颗种植体。骨整合后,每位患者以交叉方式依次接受以下三种修复体:(1)球帽式覆盖义齿,(2)杆卡式覆盖义齿,(3)Locator 附着式覆盖义齿。在佩戴以下义齿 3 个月后测量 EMG 参数(幅度、咀嚼面积、咀嚼率、咀嚼周期持续时间、咀嚼爆发持续时间和咀嚼时间):常规义齿、球帽覆盖义齿、杆卡覆盖义齿和Locator 覆盖义齿。测量时咀嚼硬(胡萝卜)和软(蛋糕)食物。
球帽覆盖义齿的 EMG 活动/幅度、咀嚼面积、咀嚼周期持续时间和咀嚼爆发持续时间最高,其次是杆卡覆盖义齿和Locator 覆盖义齿,常规义齿最低。咀嚼率和咀嚼时间最高的是常规义齿,最低的是球帽覆盖义齿。除咀嚼面积外,杆卡覆盖义齿和Locator 覆盖义齿的所有测试参数均无显著差异。除咀嚼周期持续时间外,所有测试参数在咀嚼硬食时均显著高于软食。
在本研究的限制范围内,与常规义齿相比,种植覆盖义齿记录的肌肉功能更高,无论使用哪种附着体。对于此类覆盖义齿,与杆卡和Locator 附着体相比,球附着体可能更具优势,因为它与改善的肌肉活动和功能有关。