A COMPARATIVE STUDY TO EVALUATE THE RETENTION OF CONVENTIONAL AND CAD/CAM FABRICATED BAR ATTACHMENT IMPLANT SUPPORTED ASSEMBLY (IN VITRO STUDY)
Abdelrehim, A., Abdelhakim, A., ElDakkak, S., Gepreel, M. (2020). A COMPARATIVE STUDY TO EVALUATE THE RETENTION OF CONVENTIONAL AND CAD/CAM FABRICATED BAR ATTACHMENT IMPLANT SUPPORTED ASSEMBLY (IN VITRO STUDY). EKB Journal Management System, 45(1), 75-79. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.79945
Aly Abdelrehim; Ahmed A. Abdelhakim; Sherif M. ElDakkak; Mohamed A. Gepreel. "A COMPARATIVE STUDY TO EVALUATE THE RETENTION OF CONVENTIONAL AND CAD/CAM FABRICATED BAR ATTACHMENT IMPLANT SUPPORTED ASSEMBLY (IN VITRO STUDY)". EKB Journal Management System, 45, 1, 2020, 75-79. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.79945
Abdelrehim, A., Abdelhakim, A., ElDakkak, S., Gepreel, M. (2020). 'A COMPARATIVE STUDY TO EVALUATE THE RETENTION OF CONVENTIONAL AND CAD/CAM FABRICATED BAR ATTACHMENT IMPLANT SUPPORTED ASSEMBLY (IN VITRO STUDY)', EKB Journal Management System, 45(1), pp. 75-79. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.79945
Abdelrehim, A., Abdelhakim, A., ElDakkak, S., Gepreel, M. A COMPARATIVE STUDY TO EVALUATE THE RETENTION OF CONVENTIONAL AND CAD/CAM FABRICATED BAR ATTACHMENT IMPLANT SUPPORTED ASSEMBLY (IN VITRO STUDY). EKB Journal Management System, 2020; 45(1): 75-79. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.79945

A COMPARATIVE STUDY TO EVALUATE THE RETENTION OF CONVENTIONAL AND CAD/CAM FABRICATED BAR ATTACHMENT IMPLANT SUPPORTED ASSEMBLY (IN VITRO STUDY)

Alexandria Dental Journal
Article 13, Volume 45, Issue 1, April 2020, Page 75-79  XML PDF (184.57 K)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.79945
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Authors
Aly Abdelrehim email 1; Ahmed A. Abdelhakim2; Sherif M. ElDakkak3; Mohamed A. Gepreel4
1Instructor of Removable Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University
2Professor of Removable Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University
3Lecturer of Removable Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University
4Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, Egypt-Japan University of science and technology
Abstract
Introduction: The use of implant-supported overdentures is a common approach for treating edentulous mandibles. Retention and stability are provided through attachments; bar attachments being probably the most retentive due to greater mechanical stability and better wear resistance. Micro and macro movement between the retentive surfaces of an attachment during mastication, insertion and removal will lead to wear and decrease of the retentive capacity. Using CAD/CAM technology should produce more precise frameworks with better retention.
Objectives: was to compare the retention of different Cobalt Chromium bar attachments fabricated by CAD/CAM technology and conventional methods.
Materials and methods: Two bar attachments of different method of fabrication were studied. The bars were divided into two different groups according to whether the bar was fabricated using the conventional method or CAD/CAM technology. The retention provided by each bar was tested using Universal testing machine. The difference in retention was compared between the groups.
Results:Data was collected, tabulated and statistically analyzed using the appropriate test. Group 1 needed 32.91N dislodging force. Group 2 needed 62.8N to separate the clip from the bar
Conclusions: CAD/CAM fabricated bars showed a significantly higher retentive force in comparison to conventional bars.
Keywords
Bar attachments; Overdentures; CAD/CAM; Cobalt Chromium; Implants
References
  1. Allen PF TJ, Jepson NJ, Nohl F, Smith DG, Ellis J. A randomized controlled trial of implant-retained mandibular overdentures. J Dent Res. 2006;85:547-51.
  2. Sahyoun NR KE. Low dietary quality among older adults with self perceived ill-fitting dentures. J Am Diet Assoc 2003;103:1464-9.
  3. Albrektsson T BS, Branemark A, Carlsson GE. Edentulousness-an oral handicap. Patient reactions to treatment with jawbone-anchored prostheses J Oral Rehabil. 1987;14:503-11.
  4. Critchlow SB EJ. Prognostic indicators for conventional complete denture therapy: A review of the literature. J Dent 2010;38:2-9.
  5. Hobkirk JA A-LH, Howlett J, Welfare R, Moles DR. Prosthetic treatment time and satisfaction of edentulous patients treated with conventional or implant-stabilized complete mandibular dentures: a case– control study (part 2). Int J Prosthodont. 2009;22:13-9.
  6. Geckili O BH, Bilgin T. Impact of mandibular two-implant retained overdentures on life quality in a group of elderly Turkish edentulous patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2011;53:233-6.
  7. Jabbour Z EE, Grandmont P, Rompré PH, Feine JS. Is oral health-related quality of life stable following rehabilitation with mandibular two-implant overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012. 2012;23:1205-9.
  8. Melas F MW, Wright PS. Oral health impact on daily performance in patients with implant-stabilized overdentures and patients with conventional complete dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001;16:700-12.
  9. A. Kutkut. A systematic review of studies comparing conventional complete denture and implant retained overdenture. J Prosthodont Res. 2017.
  10. Nabeel H.M. Alsabeeha AGPea. Attachment Systems for Mandibular Two-Implant Overdentures: A Review of In Vitro Investigations on Retention and Wear Features. Int J Prosthdont. 2009;22:429-40.
  11. Petropoulos Vicki C SW, Kousvelari Eleni. Comparison of Retention and Release Periods for Implant Overdenture Attachments. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 1997;12(2):1-16.
  12. Cune M VKF, Van der Bilt A, Bosman F. Patient satisfaction and preference with magnet, bar-clip, and ballsocket retained mandibular implant overdentures: a crossover clinical trial. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2005 Nov;94(5):471.
  13. Pasciuta M GY, Finger IM. A prosthetic solution to restoring the edentulous mandible with limited interarch space using an implant-tissue-supported overdenture: a clinical report. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2005 Feb;93(2):116-20.
  14. Menicucci G LM, Pera P, Preti G. Mandibular implantretained overdenture: finite element analysis of two anchorage systems. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants. 1998 May;13(3):369-76.
  15. Alessandro Pozzi MT, Peter K. Moy. Four-implant overdenture fully supported by a CAD-CAM titanium bar: A single-cohort prospective 1-year preliminary study. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2016 October;116(4):516- 23.
  16. Panagiota-Eirini Spyropoulou MER, Renée E. Duff, Dimitrios Chronaios, Berna Saglik, Daler E. Tarrazzi. Maxillary implant-supported bar overdenture and mandibular implant- retained fixed denture using CAD/CAM technology and 3-D design software: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2011;105:356-62.
  17. Giancarlo G. Romero RE, John M. Powers. Accuracy of three corrective techniques for implant bar fabrication. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;84:602-7.
  18. Abdou J. Fit of CAD/CAM Implant Frameworks: A Comprehensive Review. Journal of Oral Implantology. 2014;60(6).
  19. Jae-Won Choi, Ji-Hyeon Bae, Chang-Mo Jeong and JungBo Huh. Retention and wear behaviors of two implant overdentures stud-type attachment at different implant angulations. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;117(5):628-35
  20. Roe P, Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Lozada JL. Immediate loading of unsplinted implants in the anterior mandible for overdentures: 3-year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011; 26: 1296-302.
  21. Michelon MMM, Posch AT, Sampaio-Filho HR, Lourenco EJV, Telles DM. Does the retention system influence the stability of implant-supported maxillary overdentures? A comparison with fixed and conventional dentures. J Prosthodont Res. 2018; 1883-958
  22. van Kampen F CM, van der Bilt A, Bosman F. Retention and postinsertion maintenance of bar-clip, ball and magnet attachments in mandibular implant overdenture treatment: an in vivo comparison after 3 months of function. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003;14(6):720-6.
  23. Cune M VKF, Van der Bilt A, Bosman F. Patient satisfaction and preference with magnet, bar-clip, and ballsocket retained mandibular implant overdentures: a crossover clinical trial. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2005 Nov;94(5):471.
  24. Dolder EJ. The bar joint mandibular denture. J Prosthet Dent 1961;11:689–707.
  25. Michael D. Scherer, Edwin A. McGlumphy, Robert R. Seghi, Wayne V. Campagni. Comparison of Retention and Stability of Implant-Retained Overdentures Based upon Implant Number and Distribution. Int J Oral MaxIllOfac IMplants 2013;28:1619–28.
  26. Sadowsky SJ. Mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;86:468–73.
  27. Cune M, van Kampen F, van der Bilt A, Bosman F. Patient satisfaction and preference with magnet, bar-clip, and ballsocket retained mandibular implant overdentures: a crossover clinical trial. Int J Prosthodont. 2005;18:99–105.
  28. Jae-Won Choi, Ji-Hyeon Bae, Chang-Mo Jeong and JungBo Huh. Retention and wear behaviors of two implant overdentures stud-type attachment at different implant angulations. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;117(5):628-35
  29. Chung KH, Chung CY, Cagna DR, Cronin RJ Jr. Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont. 2004;13: 221-6.
  30. Goo CL, Tan KB. Fabricating CAD/CAM ImplantRetained Mandibular Bar Overdentures: A Clinical and Technical Overview. Case Rep Dent. 2017.
  31. Spyropoulou PE, Razzoog ME, Duff RE, Chronaios D, Saglik B, Tarrazzi DE. Maxillary implant-supported bar overdenture and mandibular implant-retained fixed denture using CAD/CAM technology and 3-D design software: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2011;105:356-62.
  32. Moeller MS, Duff RE, Razzoog ME. Rehabilitation of malpositioned implants with a CAD/CAM milled implant overdenture: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2011;105:143-6.
  33. Sven Rinke, Dirk Ziebolz. Fabrication of an implantsupported overdenture using CAD/CAM technology: A clinical report. Quintessence Int 2013;44:127–34.
Statistics
Article View: 782
PDF Download: 903