Saadati Alireza, Taghavi-Damghani Farnaz, Tavakolizadeh Sara, Hadi Alireza
Oral Health Research Center, Health Research Institute, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran.
Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2024 Fall;18(4):249-257. doi: 10.34172/joddd.41514. Epub 2024 Dec 14.
In implant-supported overdentures increase in the number of implants improves the retention and stability of the overdentures. A direct correlation exists between prosthesis retention and patient satisfaction. Therefore, this experimental study assessed the effect of attachment type and implant position on the retention of mandibular implant-supported overdentures.
A transparent acrylic resin model of the mandible was fabricated, and dental implants were positioned at the first molar area (position 6), between the lateral incisor and canine teeth (positions B and D), and first premolars (positions A and E) bilaterally. Novaloc attachments (strong, medium, and light retentive caps) were used with ABDE, 6AE6, and 6BD6 implant positions. A Dolder bar attachment was also used with the ABDE implant position. Overdenture retention was measured under vertical loading, and the maximum dislodging force (MDF) was recorded. Data were analyzed by two-way and one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests (α=0.05).
The effects of attachment type and implant position [except for ABDE and 6AE6 with light retention insert (=0.49), and 6AE6 and 6BD6 with strong retention insert (=0.48)], and their interaction effect were significant on MDF (<0.01). The highest retention was recorded for bar attachment (65.15 N), with the lowest for Novaloc attachment with light retention insert at ABDE implant position (11.97 N).
With Novaloc attachments, minimum retention was recorded in ABDE, and maximum retention was recorded in the 6BD6 implant position due to the increased distance between attachments. The strong insert showed the highest retention value, which confirmed the manufacturer's claim. Maximum retention was recorded with the bar and clip attachment.
在种植体支持的覆盖义齿中,种植体数量的增加可提高覆盖义齿的固位和稳定性。义齿固位与患者满意度之间存在直接关联。因此,本实验研究评估了附着类型和种植体位置对下颌种植体支持覆盖义齿固位的影响。
制作下颌透明丙烯酸树脂模型,并在双侧第一磨牙区(6 号位)、侧切牙与尖牙之间(B 和 D 号位)以及第一前磨牙区(A 和 E 号位)植入牙种植体。在 ABDE、6AE6 和 6BD6 种植体位置使用诺瓦洛克附着体(强、中、弱固位帽)。在 ABDE 种植体位置还使用了多尔德杆附着体。在垂直加载下测量覆盖义齿的固位力,并记录最大脱位力(MDF)。数据通过双向和单向方差分析以及事后 Tukey 检验进行分析(α = 0.05)。
附着类型和种植体位置[除 ABDE 和带弱固位插入体的 6AE6(=0.49)以及带强固位插入体的 6AE6 和 6BD6(=0.48)外]及其交互作用对 MDF 有显著影响(<0.01)。杆附着体的固位力最高(65.15 N),ABDE 种植体位置带弱固位插入体的诺瓦洛克附着体的固位力最低(11.97 N)。
使用诺瓦洛克附着体时,ABDE 的固位力最小,6BD6 种植体位置的固位力最大,这是由于附着体之间的距离增加所致。强插入体的固位值最高,这证实了制造商的说法。杆夹附着体的固位力最大。