Combination of Digital and Conventional Workflows in the CAD/CAM-Fabrication of an Implant-Supported Overdenture

Hybrid Prosthesis versus Overdenture: Effect of BioHPP Prosthetic Design Rehabilitating Edentulous Mandible

Aim

To compare the BioHPP (biocompatible high-performance polymer) as a substructure for the hybrid prosthesis versus the BioHPP bar supporting and retaining implant overdenture by radiographic evaluation to identify bone height alteration around the implants and to evaluate satisfaction based on visual analoge scale questionnaire.

Materials and Methods

Ill-fitting mandibular dentures were chosen for 14 fully edentulous male patients with adequate dental hygiene, enough interarch space, and free of systemic diseases and parafunctional habits. Patients who received new dentures (CDs) were randomly allocated into each group using computer software, and four interforaminal implants were inserted in parallel using a surgical guide. Three months after osseointegration, the patients received either CAD-CAM BioHPP framework hybrid prosthesis (Group I) or BioHPP bar supported and retained overdenture (Group II). Using digital preapical radiography, the bone loss is evaluated 6, 12, and 18 months after insertion. The subjective patient evaluation was done using a questionnaire based on the VAS includes five points for chewing, comfort, esthetics, speech, oral hygiene, and general satisfaction.

Results

The overall marginal bone loss (MBL) revealed that Group I (hybrid prosthesis) was more than Group II (bar overdenture) at all intervals in the anterior and posterior implants' mesial and distal surfaces. The patient satisfaction survey results showed that, after 18 months, the difference was statistically not significant between them all (P > 0.05) except for the comfort (for the overdenture group, 4.43 ± 0.53 while the fixed hybrid was 5.00 ± 0.00).

Conclusion

BioHPP framework material is an alternative material for implant rehabilitation of edentulous mandible with minimal MBL in BioHPP bar overdenture compared to BioHPP hybrid prosthesis.

A Comparison of Biomechanical Properties of Implant-Retained Overdenture Based on Precision Attachment Type

This paper aims to compare, in vitro, the biomechanical properties of an overdenture retained by two bar-retained implants and an overdenture retained by two bar-retained implants with ball attachments. An edentulous mandible model was prepared for the study based on the FRASACO mold with two implants. In the first system, the “rider” type (PRECI-HORIX, CEKA) retention structure and the complete mandibular denture with the matrix were made. In the second system, the “rider” type retention suprastructure was also used. In the distal part, (CEKA) clips were placed symmetrically, and a complete mandibular denture, together with the matrix on the bar, and the clip patrices were made. A numerical model was developed for each system where all elements were positioned and related to geometric relations, as in reality. The FEA analysis (finite element analysis) was carried out for seven types of loads: with vertical forces of 20, 50, and 100 N and oblique forces of 20 and 50 N acting on individual teeth of the denture, namely central incisor, canine, and first molar. Displacements, stresses, and deformations within the systems were investigated. Maximum denture displacement in the first system was 0.7 mm. Maximum bar stress amounted to 27.528 MPa, and implant stress to 23.16 MPa. Maximum denture displacement in the second system was 0.6 mm. Maximum bar stress amounted to 578.6 MPa, that of clips was 136.99 MPa, and that of implants was 51.418 MPa. Clips cause smaller displacement of the overdenture when it is loaded but generate higher stress within the precision elements and implants compared to a denture retained only by a bar. Regardless of the shape of the precision element, small deformations occur that mainly affect the mucosa and the matrix.