EFFECT OF DIFFERENT IMPLANTS POSITIONS AND NUMBER ON RESISTANCE OF MANDIBULAR POLYURETHANE REPLICAS TO FRACTURE | ||||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 1, Volume 46, Issue 3, December 2021, Page 85-91 PDF (1.4 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2021.205698 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Basem Tarek abdelaziz abdelmoaty Fadl  1; Mohamed S. El-Attar2; Ingy S. Soliman3; Mohamed A. Abu Saied4
| ||||
| 1Removable Prosthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. | ||||
| 2Professor of Prosthodontics, Removable Prosthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt.President of Alexandria Oral Implantology Association (AOIA), Egypt. | ||||
| 3Lecturer of Prosthodontics. Removable Prosthodontic Department Faculty of Dentistry Alexandria University, Egypt. | ||||
| 4Associate Professor Polymer Materials Research Department, Advanced Technologies, and New Materials Research Institute (ATNMRI), City of Scientific Research and Technology Applications | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Introduction: Many case reports and retrospective studies related implant placement to mandibular weakness and fracture. Objectives:This study aimed to investigate the effect of number and positions of dental implants on structure integrity of completely edentulous mandible. Material and Methods:Thirty-two synthetic edentulous polyurethane mandibles were divided in 4 groups: First group (I) was unaltered eight fully intact replicas representing control group acting as reference. Second group (II) was eight replicas where only single symphysial implant was placed representing single implant group. Third Group (III) was eight replicas with inserted double implants in canine area representing double implant group, while fourth group (IV) was eight replicas with inserted triple implants (two implants in premolar area, one implant in symphysis) representing triple implant group. Vertical loads were simulated by universal testing machine under conditions simulating trauma, with a compression force acting laterally on the ramus of the mandible with displacement rate up of 5 mm/min until failure. The primary outcome variable was maximum load to failure. Other outcome variables were Fracture locations and displacement to failure. Scanning electron microscope was utilized to evaluate the changes in the implant surfaces in fracture sites. Results: the results of this study revealed that there were significant differences in Maximal failure loads and fracture location across all groups [P = 0.02, P < 0.0001, respectively]. Conclusion:It was assumed from this study that placement of dental implant in canine positions disturbed structure integrity of intact mandibles and acted as point of weakness. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Implant Positions; Implant overdenture; Fracture Resistance; Trauma; Mandibular fracture | ||||
| References | ||||
|
1. Kim TG, Chung KJ, Lee JH, Kim YH, Lee JH. Clinical outcomes between atrophic and nonatrophic mandibular fracture in elderly patients. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(8):E815–8.
2. Yamamoto K, Matsusue Y, Murakami K, Horita S, Sugiura T, Kirita T. Maxillofacial fractures in older patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg [Internet]. 2011;69(8):2204–10. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2011.02.115
3. Emam HA, Ferguson HW, Jatana CA. Management of atrophic mandible fractures: an updated comprehensive review. Oral Surg. 2018;11(1):79–87.
4. CAMPBELL RL. A comparative study of the resorption of the alveolar ridges in denture-wearers and non-denture-wearers. J Am Dent Assoc. 1960;60(2):143–53.
5. Marciani RD. Invasive management of the fractured atrophic edentulous mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001;59(7):792–5.
6. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, et al. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Montreal, Quebec, May 24-25, 2002. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants [Internet]. 2002;17(4):601–2. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12182304
7. Thomason JM, Kelly SAM, Bendkowski A, Ellis JS. Two implant retained overdentures - A review of the literature supporting the McGill and York consensus statements. J Dent. 2012;40(1):22–34.
8. Cardoso RG, Melo LA de, Barbosa GAS, Calderon PDS, Germano AR, Mestriner W, et al. Impact of mandibular conventional denture and overdenture on quality of life and masticatory efficiency. Braz Oral Res. 2016;30(1):e102.
9. Sadowsky SJ. Mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;86(5):468–73.
10. Mericske-stern R, Piotti M, Sirtes G. 3-D in vivo force measurements on mandibular implants supporting overdentures. A comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996;7(4):387–96.
11. Geckili O, Bilhan H, Mumcu E. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of three-implant--retained mandibular overdentures: A 3-year retrospective study. Quintessence Int (Berl). 2011;42(9).
12. Liu J, Pan S, Dong J, Mo Z, Fan Y, Feng H. Influence of implant number on the biomechanical behaviour of mandibular implant-retained/supported overdentures: A three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Dent. 2013;41(3):241–9.
13. Mahoorkar S, Bhat S, Kant R. Single implant supported mandibular overdenture: A literature review. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2016;16(1):75.
14. Alsabeeha N, Payne AGT, De Silva RK, Swain M V. Mandibular single-implant overdentures: A review with surgical and prosthodontic perspectives of a novel approach. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(4):356–65.
15. Mraiwa N, Jacobs R, Van Steenberghe D, Quirynen M. Clinical Assessment and Surgical Implications of Anatomic Challenges in the Anterior Mandible. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5(4):219–25.
16. Goodacre CJ, Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K. Clinical complications of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;81(5):537–52.
17. Luhr HG, Reidick T, Merten HA. Fractures of the atrophic mandible--a challenge for therapy. Fortschr Kiefer Gesichtschir. 1996;41:151–4.
18. Karlis V, Bae RD, Glickman RS. Mandibular fracture as a complication of inferior alveolar nerve transposition and placement of endosseous implants: A case report. Implant Dent. 2003;12(3):211–6.
19. Almasri M, El-Hakim M. Fracture of the anterior segment of the atrophic mandible related to dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;41(5):646–9.
20. Al-Sabbagh M, Romanos G, Price SR, Puleo DA, Robinson FG, Thomas M V. Resistance of Mandibular Polyurethane Replicas to Fracture after Removal of Blocks from the Symphysis and Ramus. Implant Dent. 2017;26(3):367–72.
21. Charan J, Biswas T. How to calculate sample size for different study designs in medical research? Indian J Psychol Med. 2013;35(2):121–6.
22. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–91.
23. Bredbenner TL, Haug RH. Substitutes for human cadaveric bone in maxillofacial rigid fixation research. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000;90(5):574–80.
24. Luhr HG, Reidick T, Merten HA. Results of treatment of fractures of the atrophic edentulous mandible by compression plating: A retrospective evaluation of 84 consecutive cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996;54(3):250–4.
25. Ruppin J, Popovic A, Strauss M, Spüntrup E, Steiner A, Stoll C. Evaluation of the accuracy of three different computer-aided surgery systems in dental implantology: Optical tracking vs. stereolithographic splint systems. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(7):709–16.
26. Qamar K, Shaikh IA, Naeem S. Relationship of the inter-condylar width with mandibular inter-canine width. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2013;25(1–2):191–3.
27. Misch CE. Bone classification, training keys to implant success. Dent Today. 1989;8(4):39–44.
28. Jonasson G, Sundh V, Ahlqwist M, Hakeberg M, Björkelund C, Lissner L. A prospective study of mandibular trabecular bone to predict fracture incidence in women: A low-cost screening tool in the dental clinic. Bone. 2011;49(4):873–9.
29. Kan B, Coskunses FM, Mutlu I, Ugur L, Meral DG. Effects of inter-implant distance and implant length on the response to frontal traumatic force of two anterior implants in an atrophic mandible: Three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;44(7):908–13.
30. Huelke DF. Mechanics in the Production of Mandibular Fractures: A Study with the “Stresscoat” Technique. I. Symphyseal Impacts. J Dent Res. 1961;40(5):1042–56.
31. Morris JM. Fatigue fractures. Calif Med. 1968;108(4):268.
32. Weiss L. Static loading of the mandible. Oral Surgery, Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1965;19(2):253–62.
33. Halazonetis JA. The ‘weak’regions of the mandible. Br J Oral Surg. 1968;6(1):37–48.
34. Steiner T, Torsiglieri T, Rau A, Möhlhenrich SC, Eichhorn S, Grohmann I, et al. Impairment of an atrophic mandible by preparation of the implant cavity: a biomechanical study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg [Internet]. 2016;54(6):619–24. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2016.03.013
35. Mason ME, Gilbert Triplett R, Van Sickels JE, Parel SM. Mandibular fractures through endosseous cylinder implants: Report of cases and review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1990;48(3):311–7.
36. Cakarer S, Can T, Yaltirik M, Keskin C. Complications associated with the ball, bar and locator attachments for implant-supported overdentures. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2011;16(7):e953-9.
37. Hedia HS. Stress and strain distribution behavior in the bone due to the effect of cancellous bone, dental implant material and the bone height. Biomed Mater Eng. 2002;12(2):111–9.
38. Chang MC, Ko CC, Liu CC, Douglas WH, DeLong R, Seong WJ, et al. Elasticity of alveolar bone near dental implant-bone interfaces after one month’s healing. J Biomech. 2003;36(8):1209–14.
39. Ayali A, Bilginaylar K. Evaluating the biomechanical effects of implant diameter in case of facial trauma to an edentulous atrophic mandible: A 3D finite element analysis. Head Face Med. 2017;13(1):1–7.
40. Kan B, Coskunses FM, Mutlu I, Ugur L, Meral DG. Effects of inter-implant distance and implant length on the response to frontal traumatic force of two anterior implants in an atrophic mandible: Three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg [Internet]. 2015;44(7):908–13. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.03.002 | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 142 PDF Download: 240 |
||||
