Single implant overdenture reinforced with a metallic framework: A 2‐year clinical follow‐up

Pinheiro, Mayara Abreu; Amaral, Camilla Fraga do; Meira, Ingrid Andrade; Carletti, Talita Malini; Câmara-Souza, Mariana Barbosa; Souza, Carolina Santos Ventura de; Moraes, Márcio de; Garcia, Renata Cunha Matheus Rodrigues

doi:10.1111/scd.12601

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, as for comparing Unmixed Fraction in between the two observation times T0 &T3for the two studied groups (Metal & PEEK), the results exhibited significantly lower UF at T3 than T0. That assured an enhancement in Masticatory Efficiency at three months after insertion than that recorded at time of insertion (21) . The authors elaborated that masticatory performance of SIMO reinforced with a metallic framework showed great enhancement at time of insertion and remained steady for about one year following the insertion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

A Within- Subject Comparison of Two Reinforcement Materials Used for Single Mandibular Implant Retained Overdentures

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This cross-over study aimed at assessing masticatory efficiency in singleimplant mandibular overdentures with different reinforcement materials (CO-Cr and PEEK). Materials and Methods: Eight completely edentulous participants have been delivered conventional complete dentures. One month later; they received a single midline mandibular implant. After three months of osseointegration, each patient received two mandibular overdentures; one was metal reinforced (Group I), and the other was PEEK reinforced (Group II). Masticatory efficiency for both groups (I & II) was carried out. Masticatory efficiency was measured by two colored chewing gums test at time of each overdenture insertion (T0). Thereafter, masticatory efficiency was evaluated subsequent to three months of using metal and PEEK reinforced overdentures (T3). Results: In regard to masticatory efficiency, no significant difference was noted between the studied groups reinforced with metal or PEEK at (T0) and three months after insertion (T3). Among chewing strokes, significant differences were revealed between varied chewing stroke counts among both groups (increased chewing efficiency with an increased number of chewing strokes). Conclusion: Respecting single midline implant overdenture, there was no significant difference between (Metal & PEEK) reinforcement regarding masticatory efficiency. SIMOs reinforced with either Metal or PEEK frameworks could be successful treatment options for assisting mandibular complete overdentures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

A Within- Subject Comparison of Two Reinforcement Materials Used for Single Mandibular Implant Retained Overdentures

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[14][15][16] The high concentration of compressive stresses in the vicinity of the attachment housing may lead to SIMO fractures. [17][18][19][20][21][22] Furthermore, the single mandibular implant becomes a fulcrum for the overdenture during its functional movement, resulting in denture base deformation and subsequent fracture. [23][24][25] The incidence of SIMO fractures has been reported in a number of clinical studies, as denture base fracture has been found within the first year of SIMO use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A cast metal framework incorporated into the acrylic resin was shown to be efficient in minimizing denture base strains. 14,16,22 Moreover, the metal reinforcement distributes stresses more widely across the edentulous ridge, reducing functional deformation and supporting tissue problems. 15,24,25 On the other hand, metal frameworks require complicated construction steps and may cause hypersensitivity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Amaral et al 2019 16 described a technical approach that included the use of Co-Cr frameworks in the front area of the mandibular overdentures prior to the patient receiving a single mandibular implant. Pinheiro et al 2021 22 investigated patient satisfaction, masticatory performance, maximum bite force, masseter thickness, and the prosthetic maintenance events of SIMOs strengthened by metallic frames throughout a two-year follow-up study. ELshaboury et al 2020 56 compared the clinical deformation of SIMO denture bases reinforced with PEEK to metal frameworks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Single Implant-Retained Mandibular Overdentures Reinforced With Polyether Ether Ketone and Metallic Frameworks: A Comparative Study of Crestal Bone Loss and Prosthetic Maintenance.

Youssef

Shawky

2023

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Statement of problem:Studies have shown the efficacy of mandibular overdentures retained by a single implant for oral rehabilitation of edentulous patients. The primary complication of these overdentures has been reported to be their high incidence of midline fracture. The addition of a reinforcing framework to the acrylic denture base can prevent fractures and ensure the durability of overdenture treatment. Purpose: The aim was to compare crestal bone loss and prosthetic maintenance events of single implant-retained mandibular overdentures (SIMO) reinforced by Polyetherether ketone (PEEK) and metallic frameworks after a two-year follow-up period.Materials and methods: Twenty-two edentulous patients received SIMOs containing reinforcing frameworks. The resin patterns of the frameworks were printed using CAD/CAM. The printed castable resin frameworks were processed using either PEEK by injection molding technique (PEEK group) or cobalt-chromium metal by conventional casting techniques (Metal group). Crestal bone loss was evaluated using digital radiography and prosthetic maintenance events were analyzed. The follow-up period was two years after overdenture loading.Results: There was a slight increase in crestal bone loss in the Metal group compared to the PEEK group, but the difference was statistically insignificant. There was no overdenture fracture, crack, or abutment fracture in either group. No significant differences in prosthodontic maintenance events between the two groups were noted. Conclusions:Based on the limitations of this study, it is concluded that the crestal bone loss and prosthetic maintenance results of SIMO reinforced with a PEEK framework were comparable to those of metal reinforcement.

show abstract

“…Such treatment is simple, cost-effective, and has a minimal invasiveness 5 which might be beneficial in elderly (geriatric) patients with compromised medical conditions who had discomfort with their conventional denture 6 . This treatment gained popularity in the last two decades [6][7][8][9][10][11][12] . A third line of treatment is the placement of 3 implant in the interforaminal region to create an angular rather than a straight-line configuration 13 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of different implant numbers and locations on strains around implants retaining mandibular overdentures with locator attachments. An invitro strain gauge analysis

Elezz¹

2022

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: This in vitro study was performed to evaluate the effect of different implant numbers and locations on strains around implants retaining mandibular overdentures with locator attachments. Materials and methods:Five implants were inserted in the interforaminal area of mandibular edentulous acrylic model in the following locations; 1) one in midline areas, 2 in canine areas and 2 in premolar areas. Locator attachments were used to connect mandibular experimental overdentures (n=5) to the implants. Two linear strain gauges were bonded at buccal and lingual surface of each implant. According to the implant number and location of the implants, the strain was measured (during unilateral and bilateral loading) using the following implant overdenture designs: Group 1: strains were measured around mid-line implant only, while the other locator attachments were disconnected. Group 2: strains were measured around the 2 canine implants only. Group 3: strains were measured around the 2 premolar implants only, Group 4: strains were measured around the midline and the 2 canine implants only, Group 5: strains were measured around the midline and the 2 premolar implants only.Results: For midline implants during bilateral and unilateral loading, the highest strains were noted with group 1 and group 5, and the lowest strain was noted with group 4. For distal implants during bilateral loading, the highest to the lowest were group 3> group 2> group 4> group 5. For distal implants on the loading and non-loading sides during unilateral loading, the highest to the lowest were group 3> group 2> group 5> group 4. For group, 4 and 5, midline implants recorded the highest strain, then distal implants on the loading sides, and the lowest strains were observed on the distal implants of the non-loading sides. Conclusion:within the limitations of this in vitro study, three implants used to retain mandibular overdentures with locator attachments were associated with reduced peri-implant strains than one or 2-implants regardless placement of posterior implants in canine or premolar areas. However, the midline implants is at increased risk of implant overloading than distal implants. This risk decreased when distal implants are positioned in canine areas.

show abstract

Single implant overdenture reinforced with a metallic framework: A 2‐year clinical follow‐up

Cited by 3 publications

References 47 publications

A Within- Subject Comparison of Two Reinforcement Materials Used for Single Mandibular Implant Retained Overdentures

A Within- Subject Comparison of Two Reinforcement Materials Used for Single Mandibular Implant Retained Overdentures

Single Implant-Retained Mandibular Overdentures Reinforced With Polyether Ether Ketone and Metallic Frameworks: A Comparative Study of Crestal Bone Loss and Prosthetic Maintenance.

Effect of different implant numbers and locations on strains around implants retaining mandibular overdentures with locator attachments. An invitro strain gauge analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About