Search

Statement of Problem: Although mandibular implant-supported overdentures have been highly recommended as a treatment option, a consensus on the type of attachment systems that can be used to increase implant and prostheses survivability is lacking., Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare different types of attachments for retention by investigating outcome measures such as implant and prosthesis survival rates and biological and prosthesis complications in participants with a mandibular implant-supported overdenture., Material and Methods: The search was performed in the PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Scopus databases by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria and registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021253566). An analysis of association was conducted between different attachment systems and implant and overdenture survival rates in randomized controlled clinical trials., Results: The initial search indicated 477 studies, of which 25 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included for analysis. A total of 2154 implants and 737 overdentures were analyzed in the meta-analysis. The main results indicated the failure rate for dental implants to be 2.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3 to 3.2) and overdentures 4.2% (95% CI, 1.6 to 10.5), respectively. With regard to different attachment systems, a similar failure rate was identified with bar-type retention (7.7% to 95% CI, 3.0 to 18.1), magnetic retention systems (7.6% to 95% CI, 2.2 to 22.7), and ball-type retention (6.8% to 95% CI, 3.0 to 14.3). No significant difference was found in biological complications for splinted and unsplinted implant overdentures (P=.902). Regarding prosthetic complications, the most favorable groups were LOCATOR attachments followed by telescopic and Conus, bar, and ball attachments. Magnet attachments had higher prosthetic complications (7.4 times) than the other attachments., Conclusions: Implants and implant-supported mandibular overdentures showed a high survival rate irrespective of the attachment system used. Splinting implants did not significantly affect the rate of biological complications. Prosthetic complications were most common for magnet and least common for LOCATOR attachments., (Copyright © 2022 Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Statement of Problem: Slight offset of the central implant in 3-unit implant-supported prostheses has been reported to improve biomechanical behavior. However, studies that assessed the effects of an offset implant configuration in the posterior maxilla are scarce., Purpose: The purpose of this 3-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis was to assess the effects of splinting in 3-unit implant-supported prostheses with varying implant positions (straight-line or offset configuration) in terms of the stress/strain distribution on bone tissue and the stress distribution on abutment screws., Material and Methods: Three 3D models were used to simulate a posterior maxilla bone block (type IV): straight-line implants supporting single crowns (model M1), straight-line implants supporting 3-unit splinted fixed dental prosthesis (model M2), and an offset implant configuration supporting 3-unit splinted fixed dental prosthesis (model M3). The applied forces were 400 N axially and 200 N obliquely. The type of implant platform simulated was an external hexagon. von Mises stress on the abutment screws was measured, and the maximum principal stress and microstrain values were used to perform cortical bone tissue analysis. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey honest significant differences post hoc test were used to determine the significance of the results and interactions among the main variables (α=.05)., Results: In all models, oblique load increased the stress on abutment screws and bone tissue and the microstrain on bone tissue. Model M3 decreased the stress concentration on the abutment screws and bone tissue. With regard to microstrain distribution, model M3 had the smallest values, and M1 and M2 had similar values., Conclusions: Splinting associated with an offset implant configuration was effective for decreasing the stress on abutment screws and bone tissue and the microstrain on bone tissue., (Copyright © 2016 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of pontic and cantilever designs (mesial and distal) on 3-unit implant-retained prosthesis at maxillary posterior region verifying stress and strain distributions on bone tissue (cortical and trabecular bones) and stress distribution in abutments, implants and fixation screws, under axial and oblique loadings, by 3D finite element analysis. Each model was composed of a bone block presenting right first premolar to the first molar, with three or two external hexagon implants (4.0 × 10 mm), supporting a 3-unit splinted dental fixed dental prosthesis with the variations: M1 - three implants supporting splinted crowns; M2 - two implants supporting prosthesis with central pontic; M3 - two implants supporting prosthesis with mesial cantilever; M4 - two implants supporting prosthesis with distal cantilever. The applied forces were 400 N axial and 200 N oblique. The von Mises criteria was used to evaluate abutments, implants and fixation screws and maximum principal stress and microstrain criteria were used to evaluate the bone tissue. The decrease of the number of implants caused an unfavorable biomechanical behavior for all structures (M2, M3, M4). For two implant-supported prostheses, the use of the central pontic (M2) showed stress and strain distributions more favorable in the analyzed structures. The use of cantilever showed unfavorable biomechanical behavior (M3 and M4), mainly for distal cantilever (M4). The use of three implants presented lower values of stress and strain on the analyzed structures. Among two implant-supported prostheses, prostheses with cantilever showed unfavorable biomechanical behavior in the analyzed structures, especially for distal cantilever.

The aim of this study was to analyze the stress distribution of short implants supporting single unit or splinted crowns by the photo-elasticity method. Four photo-elastic models were produced: A (3.75×7 mm); B (3.75×7 mm, 3.75×7 mm and 3.75×7 mm); C (3.75×10 mm, 3.75×7 mm and 3.75×7 mm); D (3.75×13 mm, 3.75×7 mm and 3.75×7 mm). The prostheses were made with Ni-Cr alloy. A load of 100 N in the axial and oblique directions was applied, totaling 380 applications, individually capturing their images in each model. The data were randomized and analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively by 2 examiners. The oblique loading was significantly more damaging. The increase in length was favorable for stress distribution (p<0.05). The splinting was beneficial for the transmission of stresses mainly (p<0.05). The splinting of the crowns, as well as increasing the length of the first implant and axial loading was most beneficial in the stress distribution. Short splinted implants behaved better than single unit implants. Increasing of the length of the first implant significantly improved the stress distribution in all analyzed situations., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The study of short implants is relevant to the biomechanics of dental implants, and research on crown increase has implications for the daily clinic. The aim of this study was to analyze the biomechanical interactions of a singular implant-supported prosthesis of different crown heights under vertical and oblique force, using the 3-D finite element method. Six 3-D models were designed with Invesalius 3.0, Rhinoceros 3D 4.0, and Solidworks 2010 software. Each model was constructed with a mandibular segment of bone block, including an implant supporting a screwed metal-ceramic crown. The crown height was set at 10, 12.5, and 15 mm. The applied force was 200 N (axial) and 100 N (oblique). We performed an ANOVA statistical test and Tukey tests; p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. The increase of crown height did not influence the stress distribution on screw prosthetic (p>0.05) under axial load. However, crown heights of 12.5 and 15 mm caused statistically significant damage to the stress distribution of screws and to the cortical bone (p<0.001) under oblique load. High crown to implant (C/I) ratio harmed microstrain distribution on bone tissue under axial and oblique loads (p<0.001). Crown increase was a possible deleterious factor to the screws and to the different regions of bone tissue., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)