1
|
Srinivasan M, Schimmel M, Buser R, Maniewicz S, Herrmann FR, Müller F. Mandibular two-implant overdentures with CAD-CAM milled bars with distal extensions or retentive anchors: A randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2020; 31:1207-1222. [PMID: 32965052 DOI: 10.1111/clr.13668] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2020] [Revised: 08/28/2020] [Accepted: 09/11/2020] [Indexed: 01/23/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of mandibular 2-implant overdentures (IODs) on a CAD-CAM milled bar with long distal extensions (MBDE) against IODs on retentive anchors (RA). METHODS Forty edentulous participants rehabilitated with a maxillary conventional denture and a mandibular 2-IOD participated in this trial. They were randomized into two groups [Control group (CG): RA + gold matrices; Experimental group (EG): MBDE + gold clip]. The outcomes included implant survival rate (ISR), chewing efficiency [quantitative (VoH) and subjective (SA) assessments], peri-implant marginal bone levels (PI-MBL), maximum bite force (MBF), and patient-reported outcomes [oral health impact profile (OHIP-EDENT), and denture satisfaction index (DSI)]. Outcomes were recorded at baseline (BL), two weeks (T0 ), 6 months (T1 ), and at 1 year (T2 ) after the intervention. Intra- and inter-group analyses were performed using regression models with ⍺=0.05. RESULTS 38 participants completed the T2 visit (CG: n = 19, age = 74.7 ± 7.8 years; EG: n = 19, age = 70.3 ± 10.7 years). At T2 , there was no implant loss in either of the groups (ISR = 100%). There were no significant differences between the groups for the PI-MBL changes (p = .754). Improvements occurred faster in the EG than in the CG, but over the observation time, there were no differences between the trial groups for VoH, MBF, OHIP-EDENT, and the DSI, except for SA being significantly better in the EG group (p = .022). CONCLUSIONS The results of this RCT confirm that mandibular 2-IODs with a CAD-CAM milled bar with long distal extensions are not an inferior treatment to the conventional IODs on retentive anchors in the short term (1 year).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Murali Srinivasan
- Center of General, Special Care, & Geriatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.,Division of Gerodontology and Removable Prosthodontics, University Clinics of Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Martin Schimmel
- Division of Gerodontology and Removable Prosthodontics, University Clinics of Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.,Division of Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Ramona Buser
- Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Sabrina Maniewicz
- Division of Gerodontology and Removable Prosthodontics, University Clinics of Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - François R Herrmann
- Division of Geriatrics, Department of Rehabilitation and Geriatics, Geneva University Hospitals, Trois-Chêne, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Frauke Müller
- Division of Gerodontology and Removable Prosthodontics, University Clinics of Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.,Service of Geriatrics, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Manea A, Baciut G, Baciut M, Pop D, Comsa DS, Buiga O, Trombitas V, Colosi H, Mitre I, Bordea R, Manole M, Lenghel M, Bran S, Onisor F. New Dental Implant with 3D Shock Absorbers and Tooth-Like Mobility-Prototype Development, Finite Element Analysis (FEA), and Mechanical Testing. MATERIALS 2019; 12:ma12203444. [PMID: 31640243 PMCID: PMC6829458 DOI: 10.3390/ma12203444] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/16/2019] [Revised: 10/08/2019] [Accepted: 10/18/2019] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
Background: Once inserted and osseointegrated, dental implants become ankylosed, which makes them immobile with respect to the alveolar bone. The present paper describes the development of a new and original implant design which replicates the 3D physiological mobility of natural teeth. The first phase of the test followed the resistance of the implant to mechanical stress as well as the behavior of the surrounding bone. Modifications to the design were made after the first set of results. In the second stage, mechanical tests in conjunction with finite element analysis were performed to test the improved implant design. Methods: In order to test the new concept, 6 titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V) implants were produced (milling). The implants were fitted into the dynamic testing device. The initial mobility was measured for each implant as well as their mobility after several test cycles. In the second stage, 10 implants with the modified design were produced. The testing protocol included mechanical testing and finite element analysis. Results: The initial testing protocol was applied almost entirely successfully. Premature fracturing of some implants and fitting blocks occurred and the testing protocol was readjusted. The issues in the initial test helped design the final testing protocol and the new implants with improved mechanical performance. Conclusion: The new prototype proved the efficiency of the concept. The initial tests pointed out the need for design improvement and the following tests validated the concept.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Avram Manea
- Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery and Radiology, Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy 'Iuliu Hatieganu', 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
| | - Grigore Baciut
- Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery and Radiology, Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy 'Iuliu Hatieganu', 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
| | - Mihaela Baciut
- Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy 'Iuliu Hatieganu', 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
| | - Dumitru Pop
- Department of Mechanical Systems Engineering, Faculty of Machine Building, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, 400114 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
| | - Dan Sorin Comsa
- Department of Manufacturing Engineering, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, 400114 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
| | - Ovidiu Buiga
- Department of Mechanical Systems Engineering, Faculty of Machine Building, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, 400114 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
| | - Veronica Trombitas
- Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery and Radiology, Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy 'Iuliu Hatieganu', 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
| | - Horatiu Colosi
- Department of Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy 'Iuliu Hatieganu', 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
| | - Ileana Mitre
- Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery and Radiology, Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy 'Iuliu Hatieganu', 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
| | - Roxana Bordea
- Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy 'Iuliu Hatieganu', 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
| | - Marius Manole
- Department of Prosthetics and Dental Materials, Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy 'Iuliu Hatieganu', 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
| | - Manuela Lenghel
- Department of Surgical specialties, Faculty of Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy 'Iuliu Hatieganu', 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
| | - Simion Bran
- Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy 'Iuliu Hatieganu', 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
| | - Florin Onisor
- Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery and Radiology, Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy 'Iuliu Hatieganu', 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Implant-supported overdentures with different clinical configurations: Mechanical resistance using a numerical approach. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 121:546.e1-546.e10. [PMID: 30711289 DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.09.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2018] [Revised: 09/24/2018] [Accepted: 09/24/2018] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Implant-supported overdentures (IODs) are a treatment option for patients with complete edentulism. However, this treatment increases the possibilities of peri-implant complications, characterized by inflammation or partial loss of surrounding hard and soft tissues. PURPOSE The purpose of this finite element analysis study was to evaluate the mechanical performance of different bar-IOD designs under different clinical configurations by comparing the stress and strain distribution on the bone during secondary stabilization. MATERIAL AND METHODS A finite element model of the mandible representing a patient with complete edentulism was developed. Different designs of bar-IODs were modeled and compared. The parameters studied were the material properties (cobalt-chromium, zirconium dioxide, titanium grade 5, and titanium grade 4), diameter and bar-IOD cross-sectional shape, tilt of the posterior implants (30 degrees), presence of a distal extension cantilever in the bar-IODs (12 mm), and number of implants (4 or 6). Two different mastication loading conditions were analyzed. One- and 2-way ANOVAs and the Tukey honestly significant differences post hoc test (α=.05) were used to determine the significant von Mises stress and strain values in the bone. RESULTS The 4 materials tested in the bar-IOD did not have a significant mechanical effect on the bone (P<.05). A smaller diameter and structure of the bar-IOD led to significantly higher bone stress (P<.001). A distal extension cantilever led to an increased stress concentration (model M1 versus model M3: P<.001), which reached 50% in the event of tilting of the posterior implants (model M2 versus model M4: P<.001). Tilting of the posterior implants alone, without extension, had a nonsignificant effect (model M3 versus model M4: P=.999). Model M5 supported with 6 implants reduces the stress transferred to the bone compared with model M3 supported with 4 implants (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS Distal extensions in bar-IODs, the tilt of the posterior implants, and the low amount of material in the cross-sectional area in the bar-IOD were the most influential parameters on the mechanical resistance of dental implants in the mandibular bone.
Collapse
|