Abdelghany Ahmed Ali, Fouad Mohammed M, Emera Radwa Mohsen Kamal, Askar Osama, Yaseen Ayman Ahmed Mustafa
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
OMFS Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
BMC Oral Health. 2025 May 30;25(1):853. doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-06228-3.
Occlusion plays a crucial role in the long-term success and prognosis of implant-supported overdentures. The method used to fabricate the overdenture base, whether conventional or CAD/CAM milled, could influence occlusal contact balance. However, definitive evidence on this matter remains lacking. Thus, this study aimed to compare two fabrication techniques, CAD/CAM milled and conventional, for four-implant-supported complete mandibular overdenture bases, with a specific focus on their impact on occlusal balance.
Edentulous patients participated in this study received four-implant supported mandibular overdentures constructed using two different types of overdenture bases: CAD/CAM milled and conventional bases. A total of 21 patients, representing 42 overdentures, were enrolled in the study. Occlusal adjustments were made for each overdenture after picking up of attachments. The patients were classified randomly and equally into two groups: Group I: patients delivered maxillary complete dentures opposed to four implant-supported mandibular overdentures constructed with CAD/CAM milling followed by conventionally constructed dentures. Group II: patients delivered maxillary complete dentures opposed to four implant-supported mandibular overdentures constructed with conventional method followed by CAD/CAM milled dentures. According to the type of denture bases, dentures were classified into two equal groups: Group A: CAD/CAM constructed overdenture bases. Group B: conventionally constructed overdenture bases. For each overdenture group, occlusal analysis measurements were recorded at overdenture delivery (T) and after three months of denture wearing (T). Data was analyzed using the Statistical Package of Social Science (SPSS) program. Repeated measures ANOVA were used to test significant differences in occlusal force distribution between observation intervals, groups and locations followed by Bonferroni post hoc test for multiple comparisons. Independent samples t-test was used to compare occlusal force between groups. P is significant if < 0.05 at confidence interval 95%.
Comparing different occlusal contact locations in each group at (T) showed a significant difference between anterior and posterior locations whereas comparing different occlusal contact locations in each group at (T) showed a significant difference between molar and premolar locations for group B while insignificant between molar and premolar locations for group A. The comparison between different intervals within group A revealed insignificant differences while significant occlusal changes at premolar and molar regions were presented within group B.
The four implant-supported CAD/CAM milled overdenture bases offer greater advantages over conventional ones in terms of occlusal contact stability.
(NCT06080815))08/10/2023).
咬合在种植体支持的覆盖义齿的长期成功和预后中起着至关重要的作用。用于制作覆盖义齿基托的方法,无论是传统方法还是计算机辅助设计/计算机辅助制造(CAD/CAM)铣削法,都可能影响咬合接触平衡。然而,关于这一问题的确切证据仍然缺乏。因此,本研究旨在比较两种制作技术,即CAD/CAM铣削法和传统方法,用于制作四种植体支持的下颌全口覆盖义齿基托,特别关注它们对咬合平衡的影响。
参与本研究的无牙颌患者接受了使用两种不同类型覆盖义齿基托制作的四种植体支持的下颌覆盖义齿:CAD/CAM铣削基托和传统基托。共有21名患者,代表42副覆盖义齿,纳入本研究。在安装附件后,对每副覆盖义齿进行咬合调整。患者被随机且平均分为两组:第一组:患者佩戴上颌全口义齿,与用CAD/CAM铣削法制作的四种植体支持的下颌覆盖义齿相对,随后佩戴传统制作的义齿。第二组:患者佩戴上颌全口义齿,与用传统方法制作的四种植体支持的下颌覆盖义齿相对,随后佩戴CAD/CAM铣削的义齿。根据义齿基托的类型,义齿被分为两组:A组:CAD/CAM制作的覆盖义齿基托。B组:传统制作的覆盖义齿基托。对于每个覆盖义齿组,在覆盖义齿交付时(T)和佩戴义齿三个月后(T)记录咬合分析测量数据。使用社会科学统计软件包(SPSS)程序对数据进行分析。重复测量方差分析用于检验观察间隔、组和位置之间咬合力量分布的显著差异,随后进行Bonferroni事后检验进行多重比较。独立样本t检验用于比较组间的咬合力。在95%置信区间内,P<0.05则具有显著性。
比较每组在(T)时不同的咬合接触位置,前牙和后牙位置之间存在显著差异,而比较每组在(T)时不同的咬合接触位置,B组磨牙和前磨牙位置之间存在显著差异,而A组磨牙和前磨牙位置之间差异不显著。A组内不同间隔之间的比较显示差异不显著,而B组在前磨牙和磨牙区域出现了显著的咬合变化。
在咬合接触稳定性方面,四种植体支持的CAD/CAM铣削覆盖义齿基托比传统基托具有更大优势。
(NCT06080815)(2023年10月8日)