Mandibular Implant-Supported Overdenture: An In Vitro Comparison of Ball, Bar, and Magnetic Attachments

Abstract

In an implant-supported overdenture, the optimal stress distribution on the implants and least denture displacement is desirable. This study compares the load transfer characteristics to the implant and the movement of overdenture among 3 different types of attachments (ball-ring, bar-clip, and magnetic). Stress on the implant surface was measured using the strain-gauge technique and denture displacement by dial gauge. The ball/O-ring produces the optimal stress on the implant body and promotes denture stability.

Behaviour of Implant-Bearing Overdenture Materials with a Change in Number and Position Implants. What Happen with all on Four Protocols?

“…There is an absence of contrasted, and more long-term, evidence on the reduction or non-overloading of implant angulation, following the All on four protocols [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39].…”

Magnet Versus Ols Attachments for Implant Overdentures: A Stress Analysis Study

“…cases. These attachments include bars, rigid and resilient telescopes, magnets and stud attachments 8,9 .…”

“…One of the factors that affect the amount of stresses transmitted to the implants is the type of attachment 16 . The design of the attachment should provide favorable stress distribution around the supporting implants to allow loading of the periimplant bone within its physiological limits, as overloading can be detrimental to the osseointegrated implants 9,26 . This study was conducted to compare the strains generated around the implants with magnetic attachment and OLS attachment with PEEK retentive matrix.…”

Deformation suffered by the materials that make up the implant-supported overdentures with an increase in the number of implants: from 1 to 4. Bibliographic bibliography

“…Although the option of installing inclined implants avoiding the pneumatization of the maxillary sinus or the severe reabsorption of the jaw raised by Krekmanov[12][13][14] and Malo, increase the possibility of installing longer implants, improve the polygonal distribution of prosthetic support and reduce the number of implants without the need to perform a maxillary sinus fi lling bone graft[12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. This option to tilt the implants can also be a surgical resource in the reabsorbed jaw placing the implants in the area between the chin holes, providing a viable and predictable alternative in the treatment of severely reabsorbed jaw, reducing the number of implants, achieving a effi cient polygonal distribution capable of supporting 10 to 12 prosthetic replacement teeth and opting for the immediate prosthetic function modality, improving the acceptance of treatment by patients seeking replacement of their conventional prosthesis[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34].…”