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



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 23 (2008), No. 6     15. Nov. 2008
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 23 (2008), No. 6  (15.11.2008)

Page 1095-1101, PubMed:19216279

Effect of Implant Support on Distal-Extension Removable Partial Dentures: In Vivo Assessment
Ohkubo, Chikahiro / Kobayashi, Mariko / Suzuki, Yasunori / Hosoi, Toshio
Purpose: The use of a limited number of implants for support of a removable partial denture (RPD) changes a Kennedy Class I or II situation to that of a Class III. This in vivo pilot study evaluated implant-supported distal-extension removable partial dentures (RPD) in 5 partially edentulous patients.
Materials and Methods: Two implants (Brånemark TU MK III, Nobel Biocare) were placed in a mandibular Kennedy Class I arch. To fabricate an implant-supported RPD (ISRPD), a conventional RPD base was fitted to the healing abutment with autopolymerizing acrylic resin (Uni-fast II, GC) to support the posterior aspect of the RPD. By changing the healing abutment to a healing cap, there was no connection between the denture base and implant, and the ISRPD became a conventional RPD (CRPD). Using a crossover study design, the masticatory movements (mandibular movements during mastication) of both dentures were measured using a commercially available tracking device (BioPACK, Bioresearch, Japan). The occlusal force and contact area were also measured using pressure-sensitive sheets and an image scanner (T-scan system). Using a visual analog scale (VAS), the 4 criteria of comfort, chewing, retention, and stability were evaluated. All the data obtained were analyzed using Wilcoxen signed rank tests (a = .05).
Results: There were no significant differences (P > .05) in masticatory movements between the ISRPD and the CRPD (5 patients: 4 women, 1 man). However, the ISRPD had significantly greater force and greater area than the CRPD (P = .043). The center of occlusal force of the ISRPD tended to move more distally compared to the CRPD. All the patients preferred the ISRPD for comfort, chewing, retention, and stability.
Conclusions: One implant per edentulous area and a simple attachment technique yielded a stable distal extension RPD.

Keywords: implant-supported removable partial dentures, masticatory movements, occlusal force, visual analog scale