Effect of Attachment Type on Implant Strain in Maxillary Implant Overdentures: Comparison of Ball, Locator, and Magnet Attachments. Part 2: Palateless Dentures.
Effect of Attachment Type on Implant Strain in Maxillary Implant Overdentures: Comparison of Ball, Locator, and Magnet Attachments. Part 2: Palateless Dentures.
复制标题
附着体类型对上颌种植覆盖义齿种植体应变的影响：球、定位器和磁铁附着体的比较。
DOI：
10.11607/jomi.6157
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Maeda Y.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Takahashi T;Gonda T;Tomita A;Maeda Y.
目的：无腭上颌种植覆盖义齿通常用于遇到全腭义齿问题的患者。然而，据报道，无腭覆盖义齿是种植并发症的危险因素。本研究的目的是检查不同种植体分布下带有无夹板附着体的无腭覆盖义齿下种植体的应变。材料和方法：制作了带有种植体的上颌无牙颌模型和实验性无腭覆盖义齿。每个种植体上安装了四个应变仪，分别位于前牙、前磨牙和磨牙区域。在不同种植体分布下，在种植体上设置了三种类型的非夹板附件（球、定位器和磁铁）。通过下颌全口义齿施加98 N的垂直咬合载荷，并使用Kruskal-Wallis试验比较种植体上的弯曲应变（P=.05）。结果：比较不同附件之间的应变，使用磁铁附件的应变最小，使用球附件的应变最大，并且这种差异在大多数情况下都是显着的（P<.05）。当比较不同种植体分布之间的应变时，大多数情况下，四种植体分布上的应变明显小于两种植体分布上的应变（P <. 05），并且使用前磨牙和磨牙种植体的应变最小。无论种植体分布如何，使用定位器附件的种植体上的应变往往介于使用球和磁铁附件的种植体之间。结论：在大多数种植体分布中，磁铁附件比球和定位器附件更能减少种植体上的应变。用于无腭覆盖义齿下方以减少种植体应变的最有利的无夹板附着体是磁铁附着体和放置在前磨牙和磨牙区域的四个种植体。
Purpose: Palateless maxillary implant overdentures are often used for patients experiencing problems with a full-palate denture. However, palateless overdentures are reported to be a risk factor for implant complications. The purpose of this study was to examine the strain on implants beneath palateless overdentures with unsplinted attachments under various implant distributions. Materials and Methods: A maxillary edentulous model with implants and an experimental palateless overdenture were fabricated. Four strain gauges were attached to each implant, positioned in the anterior, premolar, and molar areas. Three types of unsplinted attachments (ball, locator, and magnet) were set on the implants under various implant distributions. A vertical occlusal load of 98 N was applied through the mandibular complete denture, and the bending strain on the implants was compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test (P=. 05). Results: When comparing the strain among different attachments, those using a magnet attachment were the smallest and those using a ball attachment were the greatest, and this difference was significant in most situations (P <. 05). When comparing the strain among different implant distributions, the strain on a four-implant distribution was significantly smaller than that on a two-implant distribution in most situations (P <. 05), and those using premolar and molar implants recorded the smallest strain. The strain on implants using a locator attachment tended to be midway between those using ball and magnet attachments, regardless of the implant distribution. Conclusion: In most implant distributions, magnet attachments decrease the strain on implants more than ball and locator attachments. The most favorable unsplinted attachments for use beneath palateless overdentures to decrease the implant strain are magnet attachments and four implants placed in the premolar and molar areas.