The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 18 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2017 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Effect of Interimplant Distance and Cyclic Loading on the Retention of Overdenture Attachments

Seyed S Shayegh, Seyed MR Hakimaneh, Mohammad T Baghani, Shireen Shidfar, Farinaz K Kashi, Amirhosein Zamanian, Ali Arezoobakhsh

Citation Information : Shayegh SS, Hakimaneh SM, Baghani MT, Shidfar S, Kashi FK, Zamanian A, Arezoobakhsh A. Effect of Interimplant Distance and Cyclic Loading on the Retention of Overdenture Attachments. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017; 18 (11):1078-1084.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2179

Published Online: 01-11-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the effect of interimplant distance and cyclic loading on the retention of two locator attachment systems.

Materials and methods

A total of 72 acrylic resin blocks were fabricated and divided into six groups of six pairs each. Locators of DIO and 3i implant systems were positioned on analogs in three different interimplant distances (19, 23, and 29 mm). The blocks were attached to a universal testing machine, and 1,440 dislodging cycles by the force of 136 N were applied. After 0, 120, 360, 720, and 1,440 cycles, the retention was recorded. Three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences in retention between the various combinations of the locator, interimplant distance, and cyclic loadings.

Results

Interimplant distance was significantly associated with retention, independent of the locator system used, and dislodgement force cycles. Mean retention was significantly higher under the 3i system relative to the DIO system (p < 0.0001). This association varied with both interimplant distance (p > 0.0001) and dislodgement force (p < 0.0001) as well as across the various combinations of distance and cycle (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Interimplant distances could affect the initial retention of locator attachments. There was little difference in retention between distances of 23 and 29 mm across all cycles when both locator systems were combined. Distance of 23mm was associated with superior retention in the DIO system. With regard to the speed of retention decrease, the 23 mm distance was associated with better performance.

Clinical significance

Interimplant distance could play a significant role in overdenture retention with locator attachments.

How to cite this article

Shayegh SS, Hakimaneh SMR, Baghani MT, Shidfar S, Kashi FK, Zamanian A, Arezoobakhsh A. Effect of Interimplant Distance and Cyclic Loading on the Retention of Overdenture Attachments. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18(11):1078-1084.


PDF Share
  1. Denture use and the technical quality of dental prostheses among persons 18-74 years of age: United States, 1988-1991. J Dent Res 1996 Feb;75 Spec No:714-725.
  2. The influence of clinical variables on patients' satisfaction with complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1990 Mar;63(3):307-310.
  3. Edentulism as part of the general health problems of elderly adults. Int Dent J 2010 Jun;60(3):143-155.
  4. Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont 2004 Dec;13(4):221-226.
  5. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981 Dec;10(6):387-416.
  6. A multicenter report on osseointegrated oral implants. J Prosthet Dent 1988 Jul;60(1):75-84.
  7. Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990 Winter;5(4):347-359.
  8. Implantology and the severely resorbed edentulous mandible. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2004 Jul 1; 15(4): 240-248.
  9. Treatment of the edentulous patient. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2015 May;27(2):265-272.
  10. The influence of interimplant divergence on the retention characteristics of locator attachments, a laboratory study. J Prosthodont 2014 Aug;23(6):467-475.
  11. Correlations between inter-implant distance and clinical aspects in two implant mandibular overdentures. Implantology 2011 Jul-Sep;1(3):304-309.
  12. Effects of in vitro cyclic dislodging on retentive force and removal torque of three overdenture attachment systems. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014 Apr;25(4):426-434.
  13. A 5-year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction. J Oral Rehabil 1999 Mar;26(3):195-202.
  14. Contemporary implant dentistry. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2008.
  15. Mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent 2001 Nov;86(5):468-473.
  16. Mandibular implant overdenture treatment: consensus and controversy. J Prosthodont 2000 Mar;9(1):37-46.
  17. Classification and management of restorative space in edentulous implant overdenture patients. J Prosthet Dent 2011 May;105(5):332-337.
  18. A prosthetic solution to restoring the edentulous mandible with limited interarch space using an implant-tissue-supported overdenture: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2005 Feb;93(2):116-120.
  19. Surgical and prosthetic planning for a two-implant-retained mandibular overdenture: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2006 Feb;95(2):102-105.
  20. Retention characteristics of different attachment systems of mandibular overdentures retained by two or three implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012 Nov-Dec;27(6):1509-1513.
  21. Retention forces of spherical attachments as a function of implant and matrix angulation in mandibular overdentures: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2009 Apr;101(4):231-238.
  22. Wear simulation effects on overdenture stud attachments. Dent Mater J 2011 Jan;30(6):845-853.
  23. Adhesion of foods to teeth. J Dent Res 1962 Jul-Aug;41:821-832.
  24. Implant supported overdentures the Birmingham experience. J Dent 1997 Jan;25 Suppl 1:S43-S47.
  25. The influence of inter-implant distance and attachment type on the retention characteristics of mandibular overdentures on 2 implants: initial retention values. Int J Prosthodont 2006 Sep-Oct;19:507-512.
  26. The influence of interimplant distance and attachment type on the retention characteristics of mandibular overdentures on 2 implants: 6-month fatigue retention values. Int J Prosthodont 2008 Mar-Apr;21(2):152-154.
  27. Prosthetic complications in an implant-retained mandibular overdenture population: initial analysis of a prospective study. J Prosthet Dent 2002 Jan;87(1):40-44.
  28. The in vitro effect of different implant angulations and cyclic dislodgement on the retentive properties of an overdenture attachment system. J Prosthet Dent 2009 Sep;102(3):140-147.
  29. The influence of inter-implant distance in mandibular overdentures supported by two implants on patient satisfaction and quality of life. Int J Prosthodont 2015 Jan-Feb;28(1):19-21.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.