Kyozo Takagaki1, Tomoya Gonda1, Yoshinobu Maeda1. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Gerodontology and Oral Rehabilitation, Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Lateral force to mini-implants should be avoided because mini-implants are weak mechanically because of its small diameter. Overdentures retained by mini-implants are usually formed using ball attachments. However, bar attachments can offer the advantage of splinting the mini-implants. This study examined the effect of attachments in withstanding these lateral forces in tilted mini-implants of overdentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Strain gauges were attached to the mini-implants (2.5 × 18 mm) embedded in an acrylic resin block. Two mini-implants were inserted vertically (Control) or with one mini-implant inclined at 10° or 20° (10-inclined and 20-inclined, respectively). The female portions of the attachments were secured to the denture base. A prefabricated ball attachment and CAD/CAM-fabricated bar attachment were compared. A vertical load of 49 N was applied to the occlusal surface at a distance 10 mm away from the center of two mini-implants. The lateral force borne by the mini-implants was measured via the attached strain gauge. Mann-Whitney U-test and an analysis of Bonferroni correction were used to compare differences between the two attachments and among the three models (P < 0.05). RESULTS: The lateral force exerted to the inclined mini-implant was significantly greater than that borne by a vertical mini-implant for both attachment types. The lateral force on the 20° inclined mini-implants with bar attachments was smaller than that on mini-implants with ball attachments. CONCLUSION: Inclined mini-implants are subjected to greater stresses than vertical ones, and a bar attachment can reduce the lateral forces borne by the mini-implant when one mini-implant inclined at 20°.
OBJECTIVE: Lateral force to mini-implants should be avoided because mini-implants are weak mechanically because of its small diameter. Overdentures retained by mini-implants are usually formed using ball attachments. However, bar attachments can offer the advantage of splinting the mini-implants. This study examined the effect of attachments in withstanding these lateral forces in tilted mini-implants of overdentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Strain gauges were attached to the mini-implants (2.5 × 18 mm) embedded in an acrylic resin block. Two mini-implants were inserted vertically (Control) or with one mini-implant inclined at 10° or 20° (10-inclined and 20-inclined, respectively). The female portions of the attachments were secured to the denture base. A prefabricated ball attachment and CAD/CAM-fabricated bar attachment were compared. A vertical load of 49 N was applied to the occlusal surface at a distance 10 mm away from the center of two mini-implants. The lateral force borne by the mini-implants was measured via the attached strain gauge. Mann-Whitney U-test and an analysis of Bonferroni correction were used to compare differences between the two attachments and among the three models (P < 0.05). RESULTS: The lateral force exerted to the inclined mini-implant was significantly greater than that borne by a vertical mini-implant for both attachment types. The lateral force on the 20° inclined mini-implants with bar attachments was smaller than that on mini-implants with ball attachments. CONCLUSION: Inclined mini-implants are subjected to greater stresses than vertical ones, and a bar attachment can reduce the lateral forces borne by the mini-implant when one mini-implant inclined at 20°.