Axial and Nonaxial Retention Forces of Different Designs of Milled Bar Attachments for Maxillary Implant Overdentures: An In Vitro Study.

PURPOSE: To compare the axial and nonaxial retention forces of different milled bar attachment designs for maxillary implant overdentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four implants were placed in the canine and second premolar areas of an edentulous maxillary ridge model and connected to a cobalt-chromium milled bar either with or without Locator attachments. According to the type of bar and overlying housing, the following groups (n = 10 each) were investigated: group 1 (MWM) = milled bar without attachments and metal housing; group 2 (MWP) = milled bar without attachments and PEEK housing; group 3 (MAM) = milled bar with Locator attachments and metal housing; and group 4 (MAP) = milled bar with Locator attachments and PEEK housing. Axial and nonaxial (anterior, posterior, and lateral) retention forces were measured both at baseline and after wear simulation, then compared between groups and dislodging directions. RESULTS: MAM showed the highest axial (53.20 ± 2.28 N) and nonaxial (anterior [33.80 ± 1.48 N], posterior [37.60 ± 2.07 N], and lateral [34.40 ± 1.67 N]) retention forces at baseline, followed by MAP, then MWM, and MWP (P < .001). MAP showed the highest axial (42.80 ± 2.28 N) and nonaxial (anterior [24.00 ± 1.58 N], posterior [29.40 ± 2.07 N], and lateral [27.80 ± 1.64 N]) retention forces after wear simulation, followed by MAM, then MWP, and finally MWM (P < .001). MAM showed the highest axial (25.25 ± 2.45 N) and nonaxial (anterior [28.29 ± 4.03 N], posterior [24.40 ± 3.25 N], and lateral [25.55 ± 1.65 N]) retention loss, followed by MWM, then MAP, and finally MWP (P < .001). For all groups, the highest retention forces were noted with axial dislodging, followed by posterior dislodging, then lateral dislodging, and finally vertical dislodging (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Milled bars with PEEK housings and Locator attachments for maxillary implant overdentures were associated with the highest axial and nonaxial retention forces after wear simulation, while milled bars with metal housing and no attachments showed the lowest forces. Milled bars with metal housing and attachments showed the highest retention loss, while milled bars with PEEK housing with no attachments showed retention gain.

Within-patient evaluation of chewing efficiency and maximum bite force of conventional dentures, fixed prostheses, and milled bar overdentures used for All-on-4 implant rehabilitation of atrophied mandibular ridges: A short-term randomized trial.

PURPOSE: This crossover study aimed to evaluate chewing efficiency and maximum bite force (BF) of conventional dentures, fixed prostheses, and milled bar overdentures (MO) used for All-on-4 implant rehabilitation of atrophied mandibular ridges. METHODS: Sixteen edentulous participants with resorbed mandibular ridges received new conventional dentures (CD, control). Four implants were inserted after 3 months in the mandible using the All-on-4 protocol and loaded immediately with acrylic prosthesis. In a crossover manner, each patient had either fixed restoration (FR, 12 occlusal units) or MO (14 occlusal units) randomly in a crossover study design. Chewing efficiency was evaluated using the mixing ability test. The hue deviation (HD) of two-colored gum was calculated after being chewed for 5, 10, 20, 30, and 50 masticatory cycles. Maximum BF was evaluated using a BF device. HD and BF were measured after using CD, FR, and MO prostheses. RESULTS: For all groups, the highest HD (i.e., the lowest chewing efficiency) was noted with 5 strokes, followed by 10, 20, 30 strokes, and the lowest HD (i.e., the highest chewing efficiency) was noted with 50 strokes. For all number of chewing strokes, CD showed the highest HD, then FR, and MO recorded the lowest HD. The highest BF was observed with MO, then FR, and the lowest BF was noted with CD. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this short-term investigation, both FR and MO used for All-on-4 implant rehabilitation of patients with resorbed mandibular ridges improve masticatory efficiency and maximum BFs compared to CD. However, MO was associated with significantly higher chewing efficiency and maximum BFs than fixed prosthesis.

Prosthetic complications and maintenance of different attachments used to stabilize mandibular 2-implant overdentures in patients with atrophied ridges. A 5-year randomized controlled clinical trial.

PURPOSE: This randomized clinical trial aimed to evaluate prosthetic complications and maintenance of different attachments used to stabilize mandibular 2-implant overdentures in patients with atrophied ridges. METHODS: Ninety edentulous patients with a maladaptive capacity of wearing conventional dentures due to mandibular ridge atrophy received 2-implants in the canine regions using computer-guided surgery. The patients were randomly assigned into three groups; (1) Bar group: overdentures were connected to the implants with bar/clip attachments, (2) Telescopic group: overdentures were connected to the implants using a resilient telescopic attachment, and (3) Stud group: overdentures were connected to the implants with resilient stud (Locator) attachments. Prosthetic complications of attachments, mandibular overdentures, and maxillary dentures, and soft tissue complications of mandibular overdentures and maxillary dentures were evaluated 1 year (T1), 3 years (T3), and 5 years (T5) after denture insertion. RESULTS: The majority of prosthetic and soft tissue complications for all groups occurred in the first year. The most frequent prosthetic complication was wear/distortion of retentive components of locator and telescopic attachments and activation of clips of bar attachment. The bar group showed the highest incidence of overdenture relines, fractures, hyperplasia, maxillary denture mucositis, and soreness. The telescopic group showed the highest incidence of screw loosening, teeth wear/fracture, maxillary denture relines, fractures, teeth wear, teeth separation, and flappy ridges. The stud group recorded the highest incidence of wear and replacement of retentive components. CONCLUSION: For 2-implant overdentures in patients with atrophied mandibles, bar attachments showed the highest incidence of complications related to mandibular overdentures, telescopic attachments showed the highest incidence of complications related to maxillary dentures, and stud attachments showed the highest incidence of complications related to the attachment components.

Posterior Mandibular Ridge Resorption Associated with Different Retentive Systems for Overdentures: A 7-Year Retrospective Preliminary Study.

PURPOSE: This retrospective study compared posterior mandibular residual ridge resorption with two different retentive mechanisms for overdentures after 7 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A convenience sample of 18 edentulous men was assigned to one of two equal groups. Two implants were placed in the mandibular canine areas for each patient using the conventional two-stage surgical protocol, and the implants were splinted with a round bar 3 months later. New mandibular overdentures were then connected to the bars with clips (clip-retained overdentures, CR group) or resilient liners (resilient liner-retained overdentures, RR group). Posterior mandibular ridge resorption (PMRR) was recorded using proportional measurements and posterior area index (PAI) on panoramic radiographs taken immediately after overdenture insertion (T0) and 7 years later (T7). A linear regression model was used to verify the relationship between PAI and the following considerations: attachment type, age, initial mandibular ridge height, period of mandibular edentulism, number of previously worn dentures, and relining events. RESULTS: After 7 years, the RR group demonstrated a significantly (P = .014) higher change in PAI (0.11 ± 0.02) than the CR group (0.06 ± 0.04). The average PMRR for each mm of posterior mandibular ridge was 0.79 mm (0.11 mm/year) in the CR group and 1.4 mm (0.2 mm/year) in the RR group. Attachment type, initial mandibular ridge height, and relining times were significantly correlated with change in the PAI (P = .004, P = .035, and P = .045, respectively). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this preliminary study's design, it was observed that following a 7-year period of use, resilient liner attachments for bar/implant-retained overdentures appear to be associated with greater posterior mandibular ridge resorption when compared to clip attachments.