The Effect of Number and Distribution of Mini Dental Implants on Overdenture Stability: An In Vitro Study

Four-year assessment of masticatory function in mandibular overdenture wearers: A randomised clinical trial comparing two to four implants to retain the prosthesis

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist on the mid- to long-term masticatory capacity of mandibular overdenture (IOD) wearers, particularly regarding the use of posterior implants to retention.

OBJECTIVES

To periodically evaluate mastication of IOD wearers, comparing the effectiveness of two to four implants to retain the prosthesis.

METHODS

In a randomised controlled clinical trial, 20 complete edentulous patients (14 women), aged 51-84 years (mean age 69.1 ± 9.6), received new bimaxillary complete dentures (CD). After adaptation, baseline measurements of masticatory performance (X50) and swallowing threshold were conducted using the sieving method. Patients were then randomly assigned to groups: control (two intra-foraminal regular implants) and experimental (two intra-foraminal regular implants and two extra-short posterior implants) (n = 10 each). After 4 months, implants were splinted, and a new mandibular IOD was fabricated with bar/clip retention. Mastication was reassessed after 6, 12, and 48 months, and data analysed with repeated measures ANOVA and Sidak's post hoc (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Despite a loss of two patients per group, masticatory performance significantly improved after mandibular IOD installation (p = .031) in both groups (p = .670). A second improvement was observed after 6 months (p = .027), with no subsequent changes (p > .05). Swallowing threshold improvements were noted with IOD, and no discernible differences between groups were observed (p > .05).

CONCLUSION

Masticatory function significantly improved after mandibular IOD installation, with the number of implants demonstrating minimal influence.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The present study was not registered in a public database, as mandated. It is important to note that the recommendation for registration was initiated in 2017 by the Committee of Medical Journal Editors, while patient inclusion in the research took place in 2016. Given that the data presented in this manuscript cover a follow-up period of up to 4 years post-surgical intervention, delayed registration was not feasible.

Influence of implant distribution on the biomechanical behaviors of mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a three-dimensional finite element analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess stress distribution in peri-implant bone and attachments of mandibular overdentures retained by small diameter implants, and to explore the impact of implant distribution on denture stability.

METHODS

Through three-dimensional Finite Element Analysis (3D FEA), four models were established: three models of a two mandibular implants retained overdenture (IOD) and one model of a conventional complete denture (CD). The three IOD models consisted of one with two implants in the bilateral canine area, another with implants in the bilateral lateral incisor area, and the third with one implant in the canine area, and another in the lateral incisor area. Three types of loads were applied on the overdenture for each model: a 100 N vertical load and a inclined load on the left first molar, and a100N vertical load on the lower incisors. The stress distribution in the peri-implant bone, attachments, and the biomechanical behaviors of the overdentures were analyzed.

RESULTS

Despite different distribution of implants, the maximum stress values in peri-implant bone remained within the physiological threshold for all models across three loading conditions. The dispersed implant distribution design (implant in the canine area) exhibited the highest maximum stress in peri-implant bone (822.8 µe) and the attachments (275 MPa) among the three IOD models. The CD model demonstrated highest peak pressure on mucosa under three loading conditions (0.8188 Mpa). The contact area between the denture and mucosa of the CD model was smaller than that in the IOD models under molar loading, yet it was larger in the CD model compared to the IOD model under anterior loading. However, the contact area between the denture and mucosa under anterior loading in all models was significantly smaller than those under molar loading. The IOD in all three models exhibited significantly less rotational movement than the complete denture. Different implant positions had minimal impact on the rotational movement of the IOD.

CONCLUSION

IOD with implants in canine area exhibited the highest maximum stress in the peri-implant bone and attachments, and demonstrated increased rotational movement. The maximum principal stress was concentrated around the neck of the small diameter one-piece implant, rather than in the abutment. An overdenture retained by two implants showed better stability than a complete denture.

The Effect of Mini Dental Implant Number on Mandibular Overdenture Retention and Attachment Wear

Purpose

Evaluate the effect of different mini-implant numbers on overdenture retention and evaluate attachment wear following one year of simulated placement/removal. Material and Methods. Nine models simulating atrophic mandibles held 27 mini dental implants in three groups of 2, 3, and 4 mini-implants. A total of 1080 simulated placement/removal cycles were carried out, and a digital force gauge was used to measure the overdenture dislodgment force. The means of the retention forces were analyzed using SPSS with one-way ANOVA and post hoc (p < 0.05). The inner diameter of attachment inserts was evaluated using a light microscope before and after testing. A paired t-test was used to compare the mean of inner ring diameters (p < 0.05).

Results

The retention was significantly reduced regardless of the mini dental implant number, but the number affected overdenture retention. The placement of 4 mini dental implants provided higher retention and less reduction in retentiveness. However, no significant difference was found when 3 mini dental implants were compared to 2 mini dental implants (p = 0.21). Microscopic examination showed abrasion wear in all inserts following testing. However, the inserts of the 4 mini dental implants showed less wear than those used for 2 or 3 mini dental implants with p ≤ 0.001 and p ≤ 0.001, respectively.

Conclusion

Mini dental implant overdenture retention force and attachment wear could improve by increasing the mini dental implants to 4. However, there was no difference in retention force or attachment wear when 2 or 3 mini dental implant overdentures were compared.

The Biomechanical Impact of Loss of an Implant in the Treatment with Mandibular Overdentures on Four Nonsplinted Mini Dental Implants: A Finite Element Analysis

The aim of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical impact, in terms of stress and displacement, at the level of a mandibular overdenture, on four mini dental implants (MDIs) after the loss of an implant. A three-dimensional virtual model was obtained by scanning the overdenture, and a biomechanical analysis was carried out, using the finite element method (FEM). The displacements of the overdenture and the equivalent von Mises stresses were evaluated using logarithmic scales. In the case of a mandibular overdenture on four MDIs inserted in the interforaminal area, the frontal loading generated the lowest values for the von Mises stresses, and the bilateral loading generated the least displacement when two implants were inserted in the canine area and two in the molar area. The highest von Mises stress was observed during frontal loading in the situation of the mandibular overdenture on four MDIs, two of which were inserted in the canine area and two in the molar area, following the loss of an implant in the canine area. The largest displacement was noted in the mandibular overdenture on four interforaminal MDIs during unilateral loading, following the loss of a distally inserted implant. The FEM analysis showed aspects that correlated with clinical observations, with predictive value. The concentration of von Mises stresses, and the occurrence of some displacements of the prosthodontic restoration, can explain the emergence of some complications in the overdenture's biodynamics, and the increased risk of fracture. Complications can be prevented by choosing a certain number of implants and a topographical distribution correlated with biomechanical aspects, and by proposing a correct occlusal scheme with optimal functional loading.