We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 33 (2018), No. 1     9. Feb. 2018
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 33 (2018), No. 1  (09.02.2018)

Page 80-86, doi:10.11607/jomi.5936, PubMed:29340347


Effect of Attachment Type on Denture Strain in Maxillary Implant Overdentures: Part 2. Palateless Overdentures
Takahashi, Toshihito / Gonda, Tomoya / Maeda, Yoshinobu
Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine the deformation modality of palateless maxillary implant overdentures using isolated attachments under various implant configurations.
Materials and Methods: A maxillary edentulous model with implants inserted in the anterior, premolar, and molar areas was fabricated, and three types of unsplinted attachments-ball, locator, and magnet-were set on the implants distributed in various configurations. Experimental palateless dentures were fabricated, and two strain gauges were attached at the anterior midline of the labial and palatal sides. A vertical occlusal load of 98 N was applied, and the shear strains of dentures were measured. The measurements of strains were compared with the Kruskal-Wallis test (P = .05).
Results: The strains of the labial side were much larger than those of the palatal side except for those using the ball attachment. The strains using the magnet attachment on anterior implants were significantly larger than those using other attachments (P < .05). Those using anterior implants were significantly smaller than those using premolar or molar implants (P < .05).
Conclusion: The strains of palateless overdentures were different according to the attachments and implant distribution. However, when using molar implants, there was no significant difference among the three attachments.

Keywords: ball attachment, implant configuration, locator attachment, magnet attachment, maxillary implant overdenture, palateless denture