Volume 26, Issue 9 pp. 1060-1063
Original Article

Lateral forces exerted through ball or bar attachments in relation to the inclination of mini-implant underneath overdentures: in vitro study

Kyozo Takagaki

Kyozo Takagaki

Department of Prosthodontics, Gerodontology and Oral Rehabilitation, Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry, Suita, Osaka, Japan

Search for more papers by this author
Tomoya Gonda

Corresponding Author

Tomoya Gonda

Department of Prosthodontics, Gerodontology and Oral Rehabilitation, Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry, Suita, Osaka, Japan

Corresponding author:

Tomoya Gonda, DDS, PhD

Department of Prosthodontics, Gerodontology and Oral Rehabilitation, Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry, 1-8 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan

Tel.: +81 6 6879 2955

Fax: +81 6 6879 2957

e-mail: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Yoshinobu Maeda

Yoshinobu Maeda

Department of Prosthodontics, Gerodontology and Oral Rehabilitation, Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry, Suita, Osaka, Japan

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 15 April 2014
Citations: 2

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°.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.