Stress Distribution in Splinted and Unsplinted Implant-Supported Maxillary Overdentures: A 3D Finite Element Analysis

The Use of Splinted Versus Nonsplinted Prosthetic Design in Dental Implants: A Literature Review

The choice of a splinted or nonsplinted implant-supported prosthesis should be based on solid scientific evidence that considers the conditions and needs of each patient. This review elaborates on the factors that directly influence clinical decisions between splinted or nonsplinted dental implants. Digital and manual searches of the published literature were conducted to identify studies that examined splinted prostheses (SPs) and nonsplinted prostheses (NSPs). The search terms used, alone or in combination, were "splinting prosthesis," "nonsplinting prosthesis," "prosthetic design," "stress distribution in dental implant," "implant loading," "implant occlusion," and "crestal bone resorption." Ninety-four studies were selected to compare and address the details emphasized in this study. Thirty-four reported articles were not directly related to restoration design but were reviewed to better understand the influence of mechanical risk factors, finite element analysis limits, and criteria for implant survival and treatment success. There are advantages and disadvantages of splinting implants together. NSPs are the ideal choice because they resemble natural teeth. Splinting a restored implant will cause the implant to appear as part of one unit and is indicated in more compromised situations, unfavorable conditions, or when pontic spaces and cantilevers are needed in implant prostheses.

Biomechanical Analysis of Palateless Splinted and Unsplinted Maxillary Implant-Supported Overdentures: A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis

The objective of this study was to compare the distribution of stress in the maxillary bone, dental implants, and prosthetic components supporting implant-supported maxillary overdentures with partial palatal coverage, in both splinted and unsplinted designs. Two models of maxillary overdentures were designed using the Exocad Dental CAD program, which included cancellous and cortical bone. The complete denture design and abutments (locator abutments in the unsplinted and Hader bar with Vertix attachments placed distally in the splinted variant) were also designed. The denture material was PEEK (Polyetheretherketone), and the method used to analyze patient-specific 3D X-ray scans was 3D QCT/FEA (three-dimensional quantitative computed tomography-based finite element analysis). Loading was divided into three load cases, in the frontal region (both incisors of the denture) and distal region (both molars and first premolar of the denture). The forces applied were 150 N with an oblique component with a buccal inclination of 35° in the frontal region, and 600 N with a buccal inclination of 5° (molars) or solely vertical (premolar) in the distal region. The model with locator abutments showed higher stresses in all load cases in both analyzed implant variants and in the maxilla. The differences in stress distribution between the splinted and unsplinted variants were more significant in the distal region. According to the results of the present study, the amount of stress in bone tissue and dental implant parts was smaller in the splinted, bar-retained variant. The findings of this study can be useful in selecting the appropriate prosthetic design for implant-supported maxillary overdentures with partial palatal coverage.

Stress Distribution on Various Implant-Retained Bar Overdentures

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of various fabrication techniques and materials used in implant-supported mandibular overdentures with a Hader bar attachment over added stress distribution. Three-dimensional geometric solid models, consisting of two implants (3.3 mm × 12 mm) placed at the bone level on both mandibular canine regions and a Hader bar structure, were prepared. Model 1 simulated a bar retentive system made from Titanium Grade 5 material by Computer Numerical Control (CNC) milling technique without using any converting adapter/multi-unit element on the implants, while Model 2 simulated the same configuration, but with converting adapters on the implants. Model 3 simulated a bar retentive system made from Cobalt-Chromium material, made by using conventional casting technique with converting adapters on the implants. Static loads of 100 Newton were applied on test models from horizontal, vertical and oblique directions. ANSYS R15.0 Workbench Software was used to compare Von Mises stress distribution and minimum/maximum principal stress values, and the results were evaluated by using Finite Element Analysis method. As a result, the highest stress distribution values under static loading in three different directions were obtained in Model 1. Stress was observed intensely around the necks of the implants and the surrounding cortical bone areas in all models. In scope of the results obtained, using converting adapters on implants has been considered to decrease transmission of forces onto implants and surrounding bone structures, thus providing a better stress distribution. It has also been observed that the type of material used for bar fabrication has no significant influence on stress values in those models where converting adapters were used.

Comparison of stress distribution in partially and completely edentulous mandibles around splinted and non-splinted implant prostheses: A finite element study

BACKGROUND

In some treatments using multiple dental implants, the implants are inserted in the bone with splinted or non-splinted implant prostheses. There are some reports about the influence of the splinted and non-splinted implants on stress distribution in the bone using the finite element method (FEM), and there is a controversy in the literature regarding whether the splinted or non-splinted implants prostheses reduce the stress generated on the implant-surrounding bone more efficiently. Additionally, the simple shape of the jaw bones with limited bone area was used for FEM analysis in many studies at the expense of accurate analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the difference in stress distribution in the bone between the splinted and non-splinted implants, and between completely and partially edentulous mandibles.

METHODS

The implants were inserted in the first premolar, second premolar, and first molar regions of the partial and complete mandibles, and the splinted and non-splinted crowns were attached to the implants. Vertical load (100 N) or oblique load (70 N, 30° from its long axis towards the lingual) was applied on the first premolar.

RESULTS

When vertical load was applied to the partially edentulous mandible model, the stress was concentrated intensively on the cortical bone around the first premolar regardless of whether splinted or non-splinted implants were used. On the other hand, the vertical load applied to the completely edentulous mandible model caused the stress to be concentrated intensively on the cortical bone around the first premolar with non-splinted implants. With respect to the oblique load, the stress was concentrated intensively on the cortical bone around the first premolar only with the non-splinted implants, in both the partial and complete mandibles.

CONCLUSION

This study shows the different stress distributions of the cortical bone around the implants between the partial and complete mandible. This indicates that the complete mandible should be used for the analysis of bone stress distribution around the implants using FEM.

Retrospective study comparing the clinical outcomes of bar-clip and ball attachment implant-supported overdentures

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of implant-supported overdentures (ODs) with either bar-clip or ball attachments. The implant, prosthesis failure, and technical complications were the outcomes analyzed in this retrospective clinical study conducted in a specialty clinic. Seventy-five patients with 242 implants supported by 76 ODs (36 maxillary, 40 mandibular) were included in the study and followed up for 88.8 ± 82.9 months (mean ± standard deviation). Bar-clip and ball attachments were used in 78.9% and 21.1% of the cases, respectively. Forty-three implant failures (17.8%) in 17 prostheses (17/76; 22.4%) were observed in this study. The average period of implant failure was 43.3 ± 41.0 months, and most of them were maxillary turned implants. The bar-clip system demonstrated more complications in the attachment parts compared to the ball attachment system. Poor retention of the prosthesis was similar between the two systems. Loss of implants resulted in the failure of 10 ODs in this study. ODs opposed by natural dentition or fixed prostheses presented with more complications. The Cox proportional hazards model did not show a significant effect on prosthesis failure for any of the factors. These findings indicated that patients with ODs need constant maintenance follow-ups to address the technical complications and perform prosthodontic maintenance regardless of the attachment system used.

Bar versus ball attachments for maxillary four-implant retained overdentures: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical treatment outcomes of maxillary four-implant retained overdentures with either splinted (bar) attachments or non-splinted (ball) attachments.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty participants who were dissatisfied with their existing conventional maxillary complete dentures were included in this randomized controlled trial. Six months after implant placement, a definitive prosthesis was inserted. Implant success, condition of peri-implant tissue, prosthodontic maintenance and complications, and patient satisfaction were assessed. Outcomes were recorded at baseline, prosthesis delivery, and at 3 and 12 months following prosthesis delivery, and a statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-two of the forty patients completed the 1-year follow-up and had their treatment outcomes evaluated. The mean marginal bone loss after 1 year of loading was 0.34 ± 0.88 mm, and there were no significant differences between the two groups. Plaque index, gingival index and bleeding on probing were significantly higher in the bar group (p<.001), and the implant success rate of the bar group was significantly lower than that of the ball group (p=.028). The most frequent prosthodontic maintenance and complication issue was the need to change the bar clip or O-ring as a result of retention loss. Patient satisfaction did not differ between the two groups except for aesthetics at 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this study, the maxillary 4-implant retained overdenture exhibited predictable results regardless of the attachment systems (ball or bar) in the 1-year follow-up period. The bar group was more vulnerable than the ball group with respect to maintaining peri-implant tissue health.

Maxillary implant overdentures retained by use of bars or locator attachments: 1-year findings from a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Comparison of outcomes of maxillary implant overdentures retained by use of either locator attachments or bars in a 1-year randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Fifty edentulous participants received four maxillary implants. They were allocated to two groups (n = 25) differing in type of prosthetic attachment used to retain the maxillary prosthesis: either locator attachments or bars were applied. After one year, implant and overdenture survival was assessed. Peri-implant hygiene (Plaque-index, presence of calculus), soft tissue conditions (Gingiva-index, Sulcus Bleeding-index and pocket probing depth) and patient satisfaction (oral health impact profile (OHIP-49), denture complaints questionnaire and general satisfaction score (GSS)) were compared. The peri-implant bone level was estimated using intra-oral radiographs (student T-test).

RESULTS

Implant survival was 96.7% in the locator group and 97.9% in the bar group. No overdentures had to be remade. Patient satisfaction was significantly greater in the bar group when rated by OHIP-49 sum score and by GSS. When comparing the denture complaints questionnaire and the separate OHIP-49 item scores, no significant difference was found. There was not a significant difference in hygiene and soft tissue conditions. Marginal bone loss was estimated 0.58 ± 0.71 mm for locators and 0.31 ± 0.47 mm for bars.

CONCLUSIONS

Maxillary overdentures on four implants retained by bars or locators were compared. Bone loss was within an acceptable range for both groups after 1 year. However, less bone was lost in the bar group. Even though both treatment options improved patient satisfaction, bars seem to be particularly beneficial with regard to OHIP-49 sum score.