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. 4     31. July 2018
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 33 (2018), No. 4  (31.07.2018)

Page 754-763, doi:10.11607/jomi.6207, PubMed:30024990


Effects of Low-Profile Stud Attachment Configurations on Stress Distribution Characteristics of Implant-Retained Overdentures
Tokar, Emre / Uludag, Bulent
Purpose: Implant-retained mandibular overdentures are a proven treatment modality for edentulous patients. Low-profile stud attachments may allow divergence between the abutments up to 40 degrees. The purpose of this study was to investigate load transfer characteristics of various locations and nylon male configurations of low-profile stud attachment-retained overdentures.
Materials and Methods: Three tapered dental implants were placed into three photoelastic mandibular models. The center implants were placed vertically onto the midline, and the distal implants were inclined 20 degrees corresponding to centralized implants. Three different distances (11, 18, and 25 mm) between the centralized and the distal implants were set on the models. Low-profile stud attachment (Locator)-retained mandibular overdentures were fabricated for each photoelastic model. Five different nylon male configurations of this stud attachment were established. The load transfer characteristics of the configurations were tested using a circular polariscope.
Results: The observed stress levels for the tested configurations were moderate except for group 25C (photoelastic model with 25-mm interimplant distances and clear nylon male), which illustrated a high stress level. For the 11-mm photoelastic model, little or no discernible stress was noted around the dental implants for group 11R (red nylon male), group 11G (green nylon male), and configurations of clear and red or green nylon males (group 11CR [clear and red nylon males] and group 11CG [clear and green nylon males]).
Conclusion: The applied loads were distributed to the supported dental implants and denture-bearing areas for tested designs. Equitable load distribution and less stress may be gathered using nylon males for angulated implants (red and green) when dental implants are placed inclined.

Keywords: denture precision attachment, implant-supported dental prosthesis, overdenture, photoelastic