DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Retentive Force of Stud Attachments for Implant Overdenture

임플란트 피개의치를 위한 개별유지형 어태치먼트의 유지력에 관한 연구

  • Song, Eun-Ju (Goodwill Junior Dental Clinic, Goodwill Dental Hospital) ;
  • Bae, Eun-Bin (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Choi, Jae-Won (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Bae, Ji-Hyeon (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Kim, Ji-Young (Department of Dental Hygiene, Kyungnam College of Information & Technology) ;
  • Lee, So-Hyoun (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
  • 송은주 (굿윌주니어치과의원) ;
  • 배은빈 (부산대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 최재원 (부산대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 배지현 (부산대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 김지영 (경남정보대학교 치위생과) ;
  • 이소현 (부산대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실)
  • Received : 2015.12.10
  • Accepted : 2016.01.14
  • Published : 2016.02.29

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the changes of retentive force in different stud attachment systems for implant retained overdenture. Two commercially available attachments with different retentive forces were investigated: Kerator (pink, blue, red) and O-ring (orange, red). Two implant fixtures were vertically embedded in base mountings. Five pairs of each attachment were evaluated. A universal testing machine was used to evaluate the retentive force of two attachments during wear simulation. Surface characteristics of each attachment system were evaluated with scanning electron microscopy. Five pairs of each attachment were evaluated. Kerator pink showed the highest initial retention. After 2,500 cycles of wear-simulation, Kerator pink noted the largest decrease in retention. According to results of surface analysis, Worn surfaces were obtained in matrices and patrices. Heavy wears were observed in matrices. After 2 year-wear simulation, most attachments exhibited retention loss. Attachments using different kind of material exhibited dissimilar surface alterations.

이번 연구에서는 두 종류의 어태치먼트 시스템인 Kerator와 O-ring의 다양한 유지력을 가지는 matrix를 사용한 반복적인 착탈 후 평가를 통해 다음과 같은 결론을 얻었다. 초기 유지력은 KP군($62.09{\pm}6.00N$)에서 높았으며, 이어서 KR군($32.83{\pm}4.40N$), KB군($12.69{\pm}3.32N$), OO군($9.55{\pm}1.33N$), 그리고 OR군($9.35{\pm}0.71N$) 순으로 나타났다. 유지력 소실량은 KP군($22.26{\pm}8.02N$)에서 가장 높았으며, KR군($6.23{\pm}3.04N$), OO군($6.03{\pm}1.24N$), OR군($5.81{\pm}0.73N$), 그리고 KB군($0.87{\pm}1.46N$) 순으로 나타났다. 각 군 내의 초기 유지력과 2,500회의 착탈 후의 최종 유지력을 비교하였을 때, KB군을 제외한 모든 군에서 유의한 차이를 보였다(p<0.05). 어태치먼트 표면 마모양상은 Kerator와 O-ring의 matrix에서 눈에 띄는 변형과 손상이 관찰되었다. 각 patrix에서는 유지력 소실에 기여할 만한 변화는 관찰되지 않았다. 결론적으로 어태치먼트의 종류, 재료 그리고 초기 유지력 차이에 따라 마모양상이나 유지력 소실에 차이가 있음을 확 인하였고, 유지력이 보존되는 것처럼 보여도 SEM으로 관찰하였을 때 어태치먼트의 내부가 상당히 변형된 경우가 많았다. 따라서 적절한 유지력을 가진 어태치먼트를 선택하고 각 어태치먼트 시스템 별 적절한 교체시기를 숙지하여 그에따른 사용기간의 준수가 필요할 것으로 생각된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Yoon YS, Kwon YO: The present state and prospect of geriatric denture prosthetic dentistry affairs among community dental hygienists. J Dent Hyg Sci 6: 255-261, 2006.
  2. Jung JO: A study on the actual conditions of denture prosthodontics used by the elderly aged 65 or older in Seoul. J Dent Hyg Sci 7: 113-119 2007.
  3. Takeshita S, Kanazawa M, Minakuchi S: Stress analysis of mandibular two-implant overdenture with different attachment systems. Dent Mater J 30: 928-934, 2011. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2011-134
  4. Ahn ES, Hwang JM, Shin MS: Dental utilization associated factors among elderly. J Dent Hyg Sci 15: 60-66, 2015. https://doi.org/10.17135/jdhs.2015.15.1.60
  5. Van Waas MA: The influence of clinical variables on patients' satisfaction with complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent 63: 307-310, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90202-N
  6. Oh SC, Han JS, Kim MJ: Implant supported overdenture using milled titanium bar with Locator attachment on fully edentulous maxillae: a case report. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 27: 223-231, 2011.
  7. Miller PA: Complete dentures supported by natural teeth. J Prosthet Dent 8: 924-928, 1958. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(58)90122-7
  8. Yeo DH, Lim JH, Cho IH: A study on the changes in retention of clips used to retain implant-supported overdenture. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 36: 566-580, 1998.
  9. Seo MJ, Lee JS, Cho IH: A comparative study on the retention of implant overdenture according to the shape and the number of magnetic attachment. J Korean Acad Stomatognathic Funct Occlusion 24: 169-181, 2008.
  10. Misch CE: Contemporary implant dentistry. 2nd ed. CV Mosby, Missouri, pp.67-72, 1999.
  11. Davis DM. The role of implants in the treatment for the edentulous patients. Int J Prosthodont 3: 42-50, 1990.
  12. Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJ, van't HM, Stegenga B, Vissink A: A randomized prospective clinical trial on the effectiveness of three treatment modalities for patients with lower denture problems. A 10 year follow-up study on patient satisfaction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 32: 498-503, 2003.
  13. Cha MS, Kim DG, Park CJ, Cho LR: A literature review on locator attachment for implant overdenture. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 29: 127-140, 2012.
  14. Cardoso RC, Gerngross PJ, Dominici JT: Survey of currently selected dental implants and restorations by prosthodontists. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28: 1017-1025, 2013. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2855
  15. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY: Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 90: 121-132, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00212-9
  16. Walton JN, Ruse ND: In vitro changes in clips and bars used to retain implant overdentures. J Prosthet Dent 74: 482-486, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80349-X
  17. Botega DM, Mesauita MF, Henriques GEP, Vaz LG: Retention force and fatigue strength of overdenture attachment systems. J Oral Rehabil 31: 884-889, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01308.x
  18. Besimo CH, Graber G, Fluhler M: Retention force changes in implant-supported titanium telescope crowns over long-term use in vitro. J Oral Rehabil 23: 372-378, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1996.tb00866.x
  19. Wichmann MG, Kuntze W: Wear behavior of precision attachments. Int J Prosthodont 12: 409-414, 1999.
  20. Bayer S, Steinheuser D, Gruner M, et al.: Comparative study of four retentive anchor systems for implant supported overdentures - retention force changes. Gerodontology 26: 268-272, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-2358.2009.00286.x
  21. Alsabeeha NH, Payne AG, Swain MV: Attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: a review of in vitro investigations on retention and wear features. Int J Prosthodont 22: 429-440, 2009.
  22. Sinclair PM, Little RM: Maturation of untreated normal occlusions. Am J Orthod 83: 114-123, 1983. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(83)90296-8
  23. Stephens GJ, Vitale N, O'Sullivan E, McDonald A: The influence of interimplant divergence on the retention characteristics of locator attachments, a laboratory study. J Prosthodont 23: 467-475, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12144
  24. Son CY, Jeong CM, Jeon YC, Lim JS, Jeong HC: Comparative studies of retentive forces in maxillary overdenture bar attachments. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 43: 650-661, 2005.
  25. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, et al.: The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two- implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patient. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 17: 601-602, 2002.
  26. Michelinakis GBC, Smith PW: The influence of interimplant distance and attachment type on retention characteristics of mandibular overdenture on 2 implants: initial retention values. Int J Prosthodont 19: 507-512, 2006.
  27. Pigozzo MN, Mesquita MF, Henriques GE, Vaz LG: The service life of implant-retained overdenture attachment systems. J Prosthet Dent 102: 74-80, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60112-8
  28. Schallamach A. A theory of dynamic rubber friction. Wear 6: 375-382, 1963. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1648(63)90206-0
  29. Winkler S, Piermatti J, Rothman A, Siamos G: An overview of the O-ring implant overdenture attachment: Clinical reports. J Oral Implantol 28: 82-86, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2002)028<0082:AOOTOI>2.3.CO;2