Effect of mucosa thicknesses on stress distribution of implant-supported overdentures under unilateral loading: Photoelastic analysis
Source abstract
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different heights of attachment and mucosa thicknesses on the stress distribution of two implant-retained mandibular overdenture designs under loading using the photoelastic stress analysis method. Materials and methods: Six photoelastic models of an edentulous mandibula were fabricated with two solitary implants that were placed in the canine regions. The attachment systems studied were ball and locator stud attachments. Both the ball and locator groups included three models that had different residual ridge heights so as to provide different mucosa thicknesses (1 mm–1 mm, 1 mm–2 mm, 1 mm–4 mm). A static vertical force of 135 N was applied unilaterally (each on the right then the left side) to the central fossa of the first molars. Models were positioned in the field of a circular polariscope to observe the distribution of isochromatic fringes around the implants and the interimplant areas under loading. The photoelastic stress fringes were monitored and recorded photographically. Results: The ball attachment groups showed higher stress values than did the locator groups under loading. Both attachment systems produced the lowest stress values in stimulated 1 mm–1 mm mucosa thickness models. The models with 1 mm–2 mm mucosa thicknesses showed higher stress values than did other models for both attachment systems. The highest stress value observed around both attachment systems was the moderate level in all test models. Conclusion: In different height mucosa thicknesses, locator attachment models distributed the load to the other side of the implant and its surrounding tissue, whereas the ball attachment did not. Regardless of mucosal thickness and attachment type, the implant on the loading side was subjected to the highest stress concentration.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes · Dental materials and restorations · Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Bezmialem Vakif University, Istanbul, Turkey
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara, Turkey
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey
Funding
Selcuk University Scientific Research Projects Coordinator
References (63)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2008.00268.x10.1111/j.1741-2358.2008.00268.x ↗
2. 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2002.00003.x10.1111/j.1741-2358.2002.00003.x ↗
3. Hong HR, Pae A, Kim Y, et al. Effect of implant position, angulation, and attachment height on peri-implant bone stress associated with mandibular two-implant overdentures: A finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27(5): 69–76.
4. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Coulthard P, et al. A 5-year follow-up comparative analysis of the efficacy of various osseointegrated dental implant systems: A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005; 20(4): 557–568.
5. 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2008.01851.x10.1111/j.1365-2842.2008.01851.x ↗
6. 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01242.x10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01242.x ↗
7. 10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70195-710.1016/S0022-3913(98)70195-7 ↗
8. Krennmair G, Seemann R, Fazekas A, et al. Patient preference and satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or locator attachments: A crossover clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27(6): 1560–1568.
9. Weinländer M, Piehslinger E, Krennmair G. Removable implant-prosthodontic rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible: Five-year results of different prosthetic anchorage concepts. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010; 25(3): 589–597.
10. Cune M, van Kampen F, van der Bilt A, et al. Patient satisfaction and preference with magnet, bar-clip, and ball-socket retained mandibular implant overdentures: A cross-over clinical trial. Int J Prosthodont 2005; 18(2): 99–105.
11. 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01810.x10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01810.x ↗
12. 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00154.x10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00154.x ↗
13. 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-0009610.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00096 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.10.02210.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.10.022 ↗
15. Vogel RC. Implant overdentures: A new standard of care for edentulous patients. Current concepts and techniques. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2008; 29(5): 270–276.
16. 10.11607/jomi.230310.11607/jomi.2303 ↗
17. 10.1177/22808000050030030110.1177/228080000500300301 ↗
18. 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-13-0023910.1563/AAID-JOI-D-13-00239 ↗
19. Misch CE. Dental implant prosthetics. 2th Ed., Elsevier Mosby, St. Louis, Missouri, 2005.
20. 10.1177/22808000110090030210.1177/228080001100900302 ↗
21. 10.5301/JABB.2011.856910.5301/JABB.2011.8569 ↗
22. 10.1364/OME.5.00103010.1364/OME.5.001030 ↗
23. 10.1177/228080001775305310.1177/2280800017753053 ↗
24. 10.1177/228080001879381610.1177/2280800018793816 ↗
25. 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181acdb8110.1097/SCS.0b013e3181acdb81 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.actbio.2006.07.00210.1016/j.actbio.2006.07.002 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2007.02.00610.1016/j.prosdent.2007.02.006 ↗
28. 10.1111/jopr.1212910.1111/jopr.12129 ↗
29. 10.11607/jomi.620710.11607/jomi.6207 ↗
30. 10.4012/dmj.2011-13410.4012/dmj.2011-134 ↗
31. 10.5301/JABB.2011.856510.5301/JABB.2011.8565 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.07.02810.1016/j.prosdent.2004.07.028 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.02.01710.1016/j.prosdent.2004.02.017 ↗
34. 10.1097/SCS.0b013e318232a79110.1097/SCS.0b013e318232a791 ↗
35. 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3182323e2910.1097/SCS.0b013e3182323e29 ↗
36. 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.00979.x10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.00979.x ↗
37. Mericske-Stern R, Zarb GA. Overdentures: An alternative implant methodology for edentulous patients. Int J Prosthodont 1993; 6: 203–208.
38. 10.1097/SCS.0b013e31825aad8210.1097/SCS.0b013e31825aad82 ↗
39. 10.1067/mpr.2000.10937810.1067/mpr.2000.109378 ↗
40. Porter JAJr, Petropoulos VC, Brunski JB. Comparison of load distribution for implant overdenture attachments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002; 17: 651–662.
41. 10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60128-510.1016/S0022-3913(11)60128-5 ↗
42. Tanino F, Hayakawa I, Hirano S, et al. Finite element analysis of stress-breaking attachments on maxillary implant-retained overdentures. Int J Prosthodont 2007; 20: 193–198.
43. 10.1046/j.1365-2842.1996.d01-185.x10.1046/j.1365-2842.1996.d01-185.x ↗
44. 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04041.x10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04041.x ↗
45. 10.1155/2010/78067010.1155/2010/780670 ↗
46. 10.1067/mpr.2001.11992110.1067/mpr.2001.119921 ↗
47. Hojo S, Ochiai KT, Sadowsky S, et al. Load transfer by magnetic and resilient attachments for mandibular implant overdentures. Bull Kanegawa Dent Coll 2004; 32: 15–19.
48. Ichikawa T, Horiuchi M, Wigianto R, et al. In vitro study of mandibular implant-retained overdentures: The influence of stud attachments on load transfer to the implant and soft tissue. Int J Prosthodont 1996; 9: 394–399.
49. 10.1016/j.cmpb.2008.07.00910.1016/j.cmpb.2008.07.009 ↗
50. Büttel AE, Bühler NM, Marinello CP. Locator or ball attachment: A guide for clinical decision making. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 2009; 119(9): 901–918.
51. 10.1097/01.id.0000202419.21665.3610.1097/01.id.0000202419.21665.36 ↗
52. Locator attachment product sheet. Escondido CA: ZEST Anchors LLC 2011.
53. 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120613.x10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120613.x ↗
54. Setz J, Kramer A, Benzing U, et al. Complete dentures fixed on dental implants: Chewing patterns and implant stress. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989; 4: 107–111.
55. 10.1016/0142-9612(90)90076-310.1016/0142-9612(90)90076-3 ↗
56. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2003.09.00810.1016/j.compscitech.2003.09.008 ↗
57. 10.1016/B978-0-08-100752-5.00007-X10.1016/B978-0-08-100752-5.00007-X ↗
58. 10.1007/s10856-007-3003-z10.1007/s10856-007-3003-z ↗
59. 10.1002/adfm.20030503810.1002/adfm.200305038 ↗
60. Bidez MW, Misch CE. Force transfer in implant dentistry: Basic concepts and principles. J Oral Implantol 1992; 264–274.
61. Shigeto N, Hamada T, Iwanaga H, et al. Pressure distribution using tissue conditioners on simplified edentulous ridge models. Part 1: The influence of the height of the residual ridge. Int J Prosthodont 1995; 8: 490–495.
62. 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90293-J10.1016/0022-3913(92)90293-J ↗
63. Menicucci G, Lorenzetti M, Pera P, et al. Mandibular implant-retained overdenture: Finite element analysis of two anchorage systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998; 13: 369–376.