An Overview of Complete Artificial Fixed Dentition Supported by Endosseous Implants

The effect of mandibular flexure on the design of implant-supported fixed restorations of different facial types under two loading conditions by three-dimensional finite element analysis

Objective: Investigating the biomechanical effects of mandibular flexure (MF) on the design of implant-supported fixed restorations in edentulous jaws of different facial types.

Methods: Three-dimensional finite element models were established to analyze mandibular displacement and stress distribution of implant-supported fixed restorations (four or six implants, different implant numbers and sites, and the design of the superstructure across the dental arch in one or two or three pieces, under the loading conditions of maximum opening or right unilateral molar occlusion) in mandibular edentulous patients of three different facial types (brachyfacial, mesofacial, and dolichofacial types).

Results: The brachyfacial type presented higher mandibular flexure and stress in the overall restorative system, followed by the mesofacial and dolichofacial types. During jaw opening and occlusal movements, the one-piece framework showed the lowest bone stress values surrounding the anterior implants and gradually increased to the distal position, and the three-piece framework showed the highest stress values for peri-implant bones. Also, the split framework could greatly increase the stress on abutments and frameworks. Moreover, fixed implant prostheses with cantilevers can generate high amounts of biomechanical stress and strain on implants and surrounding bones. The bone surrounding the anterior implant increased in stress values as the most distal implants were more distally located regardless of frameworks. The zirconia framework demonstrated higher stresses than the titanium framework.

Conclusion: The design of edentulous fixed implant-supported restorations can be optimized for facial types. For patients of the brachyfacial type or with high masticatory muscle strength, the non-segmented framework without a cantilever provides an optimal biomechanical environment.

In vitro mechanical analysis of complete-arch mandibular implant-supported fixed prostheses abutment screws after cyclic loading

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Clinicians question when to evaluate for worn or loose implant-supported retainer screws to prevent possible clinical complications.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare differences among initial and postdynamically loaded detorque values and identify physical structural changes of prosthetic retaining screws in a simulated implant-supported mandibular complete fixed prosthesis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Nine groups and nonloaded controls comprising a 5-implant-supported, milled titanium framework were fabricated and assembled (screw torque 35 Ncm). Dynamic loading (20 to 220 N) was applied to simulate 2 years of oral function. After testing, screw detorque values were measured (ΔT, initial-detorque value). A scanning electron microscopic analysis of screw threads was used to assess physical changes. Data were analyzed by 2-way ANOVA to determine the influence of loading and implant position on ΔT (α=.05).

RESULTS

ΔT values of loaded and nonloaded groups were compared separately at each implant position and showed a significant difference only for the implant in the central position (P=.002). All positions were compared in terms of ΔT values separately for loaded and nonloaded conditions. A significantly higher ΔT was found in 1 cantilever area of the loaded group, whereas a significantly lower ΔT value was found in the central position in the nonloaded group. No statistically significant differences were found in physical changes between loading and nonloading or among implant positions.

CONCLUSIONS

When delivering a multiimplant supported prosthesis, the application of dynamic loading and the sequence in which implant screws are tightened could influence the subsequent detorque value of a screw; they have no effect on the physical appearance of screws after extended function.

Gingival Embrasure Fill In Fixed Implant-Supported Prosthetics: A Review

After provisional or definitive cementation of fixed implant-supported prostheses, spontaneous gingival proliferation may occur to fill the cervical embrasure areas of the prosthesis. Adequate oral hygiene, osseous spacing between the supporting implants and attached or immovable soft tissue may be the conditions that allow this phenomenon. This proliferation embrasure fill eliminates interproximal gingival voids, that is, black triangles, and makes the outcome more esthetically acceptable. Since interproximal prosthetic deign and implant positioning may be the primary factors for the fill, the gingival fill may be, in fact, an epulis.

In vivo evaluation of occlusalcontact area and maximum bite force in patients with various types of implant-supported prostheses

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of various implant retained and/or supported prostheses on number of occlusal contacts (NOC), occlusal contact area (OCA)and maximum bite force (BF).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In total, 56 patients were included in the study; five test groups and two control groups. The patients in the treatment groups received implant-supported/retained prosthesis; over-dentures retained with two individual attachments in occlusion with complete denture, with four individual attachments in occlusion with complete denture, with four individual attachments in occlusion with fixed partial dentures or natural dentition, 6-implant retained fixed bridges in occlusion with natural dentition and 8-implant retained fixed bridges in occlusion with natural dentition. The patients in control group 1 were wearing conventional complete maxillary and mandibular dentures, whereas in control group 2 they had fixed full-arch porcelain-fused to metal restorations prostheses for both arches. Dental Pre-scale was used measure the NOC, BF and OCA.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the treatment and control groups, among the groups with regards to NOC. OCA demonstrated different results among the removable and fixed reconstruction groups. With regards to BF, removable dentures supported with four implants showed higher bite force values than controls and two implant over-dentures. Also, a fixed reconstruction using eight implants showed higher BF values than a fixed reconstruction using six implants.

CONCLUSION

Use of implants for removable dentures and fixed reconstructions improve occlusal contact area and bite force.

Virtual implant planning in the edentulous maxilla: criteria for decision making of prosthesis design

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate prosthetic parameters in the edentulous anterior maxilla for decision making between fixed and removable implant prosthesis using virtual planning software.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

CT- or DVT-scans of 43 patients (mean age 62 ± 8 years) with an edentulous maxilla were analyzed with the NobelGuide software. Implants (≥3.5 mm diameter, ≥10 mm length) were virtually placed in the optimal three-dimensional prosthetic position of all maxillary front teeth. Anatomical and prosthetic landmarks, including the cervical crown point (C-Point), the acrylic flange border (F-Point), and the implant-platform buccal-end (I-Point) were defined in each middle section to determine four measuring parameters: (1) acrylic flange height (FLHeight), (2) mucosal coverage (MucCov), (3) crown-Implant distance (CID) and (4) buccal prosthesis profile (ProsthProfile). Based on these parameters, all patients were assigned to one of three classes: (A) MucCov ≤ 0 mm and ProsthProfile≥45(0) allowing for fixed prosthesis, (B) MucCov = 0-5 mm and/or ProsthProfile = 30(0) -45(0) probably allowing for fixed prosthesis, and (C) MucCov ≥ 5 mm and/or ProsthProfile ≤ 30(0) where removable prosthesis is favorable. Statistical analyses included descriptive methods and non-parametric tests.

RESULTS

Mean values were for FLHeight 10.0 mm, MucCov 5.6 mm, CID 7.4 mm, and ProsthProfile 39.1(0) . Seventy percent of patients fulfilled class C criteria (removable), 21% class B (probably fixed), and 2% class A (fixed), while in 7% (three patients) bone volume was insufficient for implant planning.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed classification and virtual planning procedure simplify the decision-making process regarding type of prosthesis and increase predictability of esthetic treatment outcomes. It was demonstrated that in the majority of cases, the space between the prosthetic crown and implant platform had to be filled with prosthetic materials.