PURPOSE: Palateless maxillary implant overdentures are often used for patients experiencing problems with a full-palate denture. However, palateless overdentures are reported to be a risk factor for implant complications. The purpose of this study was to examine the strain on implants beneath palateless overdentures with unsplinted attachments under various implant distributions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A maxillary edentulous model with implants and an experimental palateless overdenture were fabricated. Four strain gauges were attached to each implant, positioned in the anterior, premolar, and molar areas. Three types of unsplinted attachments (ball, locator, and magnet) were set on the implants under various implant distributions. A vertical occlusal load of 98 N was applied through the mandibular complete denture, and the bending strain on the implants was compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test (P = .05). RESULTS: When comparing the strain among different attachments, those using a magnet attachment were the smallest and those using a ball attachment were the greatest, and this difference was significant in most situations (P < .05). When comparing the strain among different implant distributions, the strain on a four-implant distribution was significantly smaller than that on a two-implant distribution in most situations (P < .05), and those using premolar and molar implants recorded the smallest strain. The strain on implants using a locator attachment tended to be midway between those using ball and magnet attachments, regardless of the implant distribution. CONCLUSION: In most implant distributions, magnet attachments decrease the strain on implants more than ball and locator attachments. The most favorable unsplinted attachments for use beneath palateless overdentures to decrease the implant strain are magnet attachments and four implants placed in the premolar and molar areas.
PURPOSE: Palateless maxillary implant overdentures are often used for patients experiencing problems with a full-palate denture. However, palateless overdentures are reported to be a risk factor for implant complications. The purpose of this study was to examine the strain on implants beneath palateless overdentures with unsplinted attachments under various implant distributions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A maxillary edentulous model with implants and an experimental palateless overdenture were fabricated. Four strain gauges were attached to each implant, positioned in the anterior, premolar, and molar areas. Three types of unsplinted attachments (ball, locator, and magnet) were set on the implants under various implant distributions. A vertical occlusal load of 98 N was applied through the mandibular complete denture, and the bending strain on the implants was compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test (P = .05). RESULTS: When comparing the strain among different attachments, those using a magnet attachment were the smallest and those using a ball attachment were the greatest, and this difference was significant in most situations (P < .05). When comparing the strain among different implant distributions, the strain on a four-implant distribution was significantly smaller than that on a two-implant distribution in most situations (P < .05), and those using premolar and molar implants recorded the smallest strain. The strain on implants using a locator attachment tended to be midway between those using ball and magnet attachments, regardless of the implant distribution. CONCLUSION: In most implant distributions, magnet attachments decrease the strain on implants more than ball and locator attachments. The most favorable unsplinted attachments for use beneath palateless overdentures to decrease the implant strain are magnet attachments and four implants placed in the premolar and molar areas.