Implant Overloading Considerations for Implant Assisted Overdentures .

Mohamed A El Maroush; Suleiman M Esayah; Osama Mohammed Askar

doi:10.18535/ijsrm/v9i06.mp04

Abstract

The loss of retention and stability are considered the most common prosthetic problems that face prosthodontics in complete denture patients especially with continued residual ridge resorption, which increased the number of patients’ seeking improvement of the retention and stability in order to use their dentures. The implant supported overdenture is considered the best option of treatment to solve these problems. Implants may be subjected to occlusal overloading during function which will negatively affect the prognosis of implant osseintegration. This encouraged us to review the literature concerning the factors affecting implant assisted overdentures (IAOD) overloading and how to control them to the benefit and comfort of the patient as well as longevity of the prosthetic.

Keywords

implant overdentureoccusal overloadfactors affecting implant loading

References

Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Brånemark P-IJIjoos. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. 1981; 10: 387-416.Google Scholar ↗
Celik G, Uludag BJTJopd. Photoelastic stress analysis of various retention mechanisms on 3-implant-retained mandibular overdentures. 2007; 97: 229-235.Google Scholar ↗
Mericske-Stern RJTJopd. Treatment outcomes with implant-supported overdentures: clinical considerations. 1998; 79: 66-73.Google Scholar ↗
Zurdo J, Romao C, Wennström JLJCoir. Survival and complication rates of implant‐supported fixed partial dentures with cantilevers: a systematic review. 2009; 20: 59-66.Google Scholar ↗
Jovanovic SAJAidr. Peri-implant tissue response to pathological insults. 1999; 13: 82-86.Google Scholar ↗
van Kampen F, Cune M, 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: 720-726.Google Scholar ↗
Vafaei F, Khoshhal M, Bayat-Movahed S, Ahangary AH, Firooz F, Izady A, Rakhshan V. Comparative stress distribution of implant-retained mandibular ball-supported and bar-supported overlay dentures: a finite element analysis. J Oral Implantol 2011; 37: 421-429.Google Scholar ↗
Tabata LF, Assunção WG, Barão VAR, Gomes EA, Delben JA, de Sousa EAC, Rocha EPJJoCS. Comparison of single-standing or connected implants on stress distribution in bone of mandibular overdentures: a two-dimensional finite element analysis. 2010; 21: 696-702.Google Scholar ↗
Brewer AA, Fenton AH. The overdenture. Dent Clin North Am 1973; 17: 723-746.Google Scholar ↗
Gross MD. Occlusion in implant dentistry. A review of the literature of prosthetic determinants and current concepts. Aust Dent J 2008; 53 Suppl 1: S60-68.Google Scholar ↗
Satheesh Kumar P, Satheesh KK, John J, Patil G, Patel RJISRN. Force transfer and stress distribution in an implant-supported overdenture retained with a hader bar attachment: a finite element analysis. 2013; 2013.Google Scholar ↗
Trakas T, Michalakis K, Kang K, Hirayama HJId. Attachment systems for implant retained overdentures: a literature review. 2006; 15: 24-34.Google Scholar ↗
AlOthman Y, AlLubli HJEDS. Occlusal Considerations in Dental Implantology. 2019; 18: 1872-1883.Google Scholar ↗
Taylor TD. Fixed implant rehabilitation for the edentulous maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991; 6: 329-337.Google Scholar ↗
Falk H, Laurell L, Lundgren D. Occlusal interferences and cantilever joint stress in implant-supported prostheses occluding with complete dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990; 5: 70-77.Google Scholar ↗
Duyck J, Van Oosterwyck H, Vander Sloten J, De Cooman M, Puers R, Naert I. Magnitude and distribution of occlusal forces on oral implants supporting fixed prostheses: an in vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11: 465-475.Google Scholar ↗
Verma M, Nanda A, Sood AJJotICDRO. Principles of occlusion in implant dentistry. 2015; 7: 27.Google Scholar ↗
Kunavisarut C, Lang LA, Stoner BR, Felton DA. Finite element analysis on dental implant-supported prostheses without passive fit. J Prosthodont 2002; 11: 30-40.Google Scholar ↗
Sahin S, Cehreli MC. The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: current status. Implant Dent 2001; 10: 85-92.Google Scholar ↗
Pesqueira AA, Goiato MC, Filho HG, Monteiro DR, Santos DM, Haddad MF, Pellizzer EP. Use of stress analysis methods to evaluate the biomechanics of oral rehabilitation with implants. J Oral Implantol 2014; 40: 217-228.Google Scholar ↗
Bathala L, Majeti V, Rachuri N, Singh N, Gedela S. The Role of Polyether Ether Ketone (Peek) in Dentistry - A Review. J Med Life 2019; 12: 5-9.Google Scholar ↗
Evtimovska E, Masri R, Driscoll CF, Romberg E. The change in retentive values of locator attachments and hader clips over time. J Prosthodont 2009; 18: 479-483.Google Scholar ↗
Passaretti A, Petroni G, Miracolo G, Savoia V, Perpetuini A, Cicconetti A. Metal free, full arch, fixed prosthesis for edentulous mandible rehabilitation on four implants. J Prosthodont Res 2018; 62: 264-267.Google Scholar ↗
Gumbau G, López A, Diago M, Diagoa M. All-on-4 with tapered neck implants and a hybrid prosthesis with a fiberglassreinforced structure. Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation 2019; 5.Google Scholar ↗
Kotthaus M, Hasan I, Keilig L, Gruner M, Bourauel C, Stark H. Investigation of the retention forces of secondary telescopic crowns made from Pekkton(R) ivory in combination with primary crowns made from four different dental alloys: an in vitro study. Biomed Tech (Berl) 2019; 64: 555-562.Google Scholar ↗
Dawson JH, Hyde B, Hurst M, Harris BT, Lin WS. Polyetherketoneketone (PEKK), a framework material for complete fixed and removable dental prostheses: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119: 867-872.Google Scholar ↗
Oh KC, Park JH, Lee JH, Moon HS. Treatment of a mandibular discontinuity defect by using a fibula free flap and an implant-supported fixed complete denture fabricated with a PEKK framework: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119: 1021-1024.Google Scholar ↗
Choi JW, Yun BH, Jeong CM, Huh JB. Retentive Properties of Two Stud Attachments with Polyetherketoneketone or Nylon Insert in Mandibular Implant Overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018; 33: 1079-1088.Google Scholar ↗
Bae SY, Park JY, Jeong ID, Kim HY, Kim JH, Kim WC. Three-dimensional analysis of marginal and internal fit of copings fabricated with polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) and zirconia. J Prosthodont Res 2017; 61: 106-112.Google Scholar ↗
Brunski JB. Biomechanical considerations in dental implant design. Int J Oral Implantol 1988; 5: 31-34.Google Scholar ↗
Satheesh Kumar P, Satheesh KK, John J, Patil G, Patel R. Force transfer and stress distribution in an implant-supported overdenture retained with a hader bar attachment: a finite element analysis. ISRN Dent 2013; 2013: 369147.Google Scholar ↗
Nishioka RS, de Vasconcellos LG, Joias RP, Rode Sde M. Load-application devices: a comparative strain gauge analysis. Braz Dent J 2015; 26: 258-262.Google Scholar ↗
Broggini N, Cirelli J. Glossary of oral and maxillofacial implants. QuintessenceGoogle Scholar ↗
Isidor F. Influence of forces on peri-implant bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17 Suppl 2: 8-18.Google Scholar ↗
Chapman RJ. Principles of occlusion for implant prostheses: guidelines for position, timing, and force of occlusal contacts. Quintessence Int 1989; 20: 473-480.Google Scholar ↗
Laney WR. Glossary of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017; 32: Gi-G200.Google Scholar ↗
Miyata T, Kobayashi Y, Araki H, Ohto T, Shin K. The influence of controlled occlusal overload on peri-implant tissue. part 4: a histologic study in monkeys. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002; 17: 384-390.Google Scholar ↗
Lundgren D, Laurell L. Biomechanical aspects of fixed bridgework supported by natural teeth and endosseous implants. Periodontol 2000 1994; 4: 23-40.Google Scholar ↗
Morneburg TR, Proschel PA. In vivo forces on implants influenced by occlusal scheme and food consistency. Int J Prosthodont 2003; 16: 481-486.Google Scholar ↗
Conrad HJ, Schulte JK, Vallee MC. Fractures related to occlusal overload with single posterior implants: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 99: 251-256.Google Scholar ↗
Rangert B, Krogh PH, Langer B, Van Roekel N. Bending overload and implant fracture: a retrospective clinical analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995; 10: 326-334.Google Scholar ↗
Hutton JE, Heath MR, Chai JY, Harnett J, Jemt T, Johns RB, McKenna S, McNamara DC, van Steenberghe D, Taylor R, et al. Factors related to success and failure rates at 3-year follow-up in a multicenter study of overdentures supported by Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995; 10: 33-42.Google Scholar ↗
Misch CE. Endosteal implants for posterior single tooth replacement: alternatives, indications, contraindications, and limitations. J Oral Implantol 1999; 25: 80-94.Google Scholar ↗
Appleton RS, Nummikoski PV, Pigno MA, Cronin RJ, Chung KHJCoir. A radiographic assessment of progressive loading on bone around single osseointegrated implants in the posterior maxilla. 2005; 16: 161-167.Google Scholar ↗
Rangert B, Krogh PH, Langer B, Van Roekel NJIjoo, implants m. Bending overload and implant fracture: a retrospective clinical analysis. 1995; 10.Google Scholar ↗
Quirynen M, Naert I, Van Steenberghe DJCoir. Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and future success in the Brånemark® system. 1992; 3: 104-111.Google Scholar ↗
Baggi L, Cappelloni I, Di Girolamo M, Maceri F, Vairo G. The influence of implant diameter and length on stress distribution of osseointegrated implants related to crestal bone geometry: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 100: 422-431.Google Scholar ↗
Pavlin D, Gluhak-Heinrich JJCRiOB, Medicine. Effect of mechanical loading on periodontal cells. 2001; 12: 414-424.Google Scholar ↗
Schwarz MS. Mechanical complications of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11 Suppl 1: 156-158.Google Scholar ↗
Quirynen M, Naert I, van Steenberghe D, Nys L. A study of 589 consecutive implants supporting complete fixed prostheses. Part I: Periodontal aspects. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68: 655-663Google Scholar ↗

[refR-1] Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Brånemark P-IJIjoos. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. 1981; 10: 387-416.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-2] Celik G, Uludag BJTJopd. Photoelastic stress analysis of various retention mechanisms on 3-implant-retained mandibular overdentures. 2007; 97: 229-235.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-3] Mericske-Stern RJTJopd. Treatment outcomes with implant-supported overdentures: clinical considerations. 1998; 79: 66-73.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-4] Zurdo J, Romao C, Wennström JLJCoir. Survival and complication rates of implant‐supported fixed partial dentures with cantilevers: a systematic review. 2009; 20: 59-66.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-5] Jovanovic SAJAidr. Peri-implant tissue response to pathological insults. 1999; 13: 82-86.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-6] van Kampen F, Cune M, 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: 720-726.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-7] Vafaei F, Khoshhal M, Bayat-Movahed S, Ahangary AH, Firooz F, Izady A, Rakhshan V. Comparative stress distribution of implant-retained mandibular ball-supported and bar-supported overlay dentures: a finite element analysis. J Oral Implantol 2011; 37: 421-429.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-8] Tabata LF, Assunção WG, Barão VAR, Gomes EA, Delben JA, de Sousa EAC, Rocha EPJJoCS. Comparison of single-standing or connected implants on stress distribution in bone of mandibular overdentures: a two-dimensional finite element analysis. 2010; 21: 696-702.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-9] Brewer AA, Fenton AH. The overdenture. Dent Clin North Am 1973; 17: 723-746.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-10] Gross MD. Occlusion in implant dentistry. A review of the literature of prosthetic determinants and current concepts. Aust Dent J 2008; 53 Suppl 1: S60-68.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-11] Satheesh Kumar P, Satheesh KK, John J, Patil G, Patel RJISRN. Force transfer and stress distribution in an implant-supported overdenture retained with a hader bar attachment: a finite element analysis. 2013; 2013.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-12] Trakas T, Michalakis K, Kang K, Hirayama HJId. Attachment systems for implant retained overdentures: a literature review. 2006; 15: 24-34.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-13] AlOthman Y, AlLubli HJEDS. Occlusal Considerations in Dental Implantology. 2019; 18: 1872-1883.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-14] Taylor TD. Fixed implant rehabilitation for the edentulous maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991; 6: 329-337.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-15] Falk H, Laurell L, Lundgren D. Occlusal interferences and cantilever joint stress in implant-supported prostheses occluding with complete dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990; 5: 70-77.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-16] Duyck J, Van Oosterwyck H, Vander Sloten J, De Cooman M, Puers R, Naert I. Magnitude and distribution of occlusal forces on oral implants supporting fixed prostheses: an in vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11: 465-475.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-17] Verma M, Nanda A, Sood AJJotICDRO. Principles of occlusion in implant dentistry. 2015; 7: 27.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-18] Kunavisarut C, Lang LA, Stoner BR, Felton DA. Finite element analysis on dental implant-supported prostheses without passive fit. J Prosthodont 2002; 11: 30-40.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-19] Sahin S, Cehreli MC. The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: current status. Implant Dent 2001; 10: 85-92.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-20] Pesqueira AA, Goiato MC, Filho HG, Monteiro DR, Santos DM, Haddad MF, Pellizzer EP. Use of stress analysis methods to evaluate the biomechanics of oral rehabilitation with implants. J Oral Implantol 2014; 40: 217-228.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-21] Bathala L, Majeti V, Rachuri N, Singh N, Gedela S. The Role of Polyether Ether Ketone (Peek) in Dentistry - A Review. J Med Life 2019; 12: 5-9.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-22] Evtimovska E, Masri R, Driscoll CF, Romberg E. The change in retentive values of locator attachments and hader clips over time. J Prosthodont 2009; 18: 479-483.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-23] Passaretti A, Petroni G, Miracolo G, Savoia V, Perpetuini A, Cicconetti A. Metal free, full arch, fixed prosthesis for edentulous mandible rehabilitation on four implants. J Prosthodont Res 2018; 62: 264-267.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-24] Gumbau G, López A, Diago M, Diagoa M. All-on-4 with tapered neck implants and a hybrid prosthesis with a fiberglassreinforced structure. Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation 2019; 5.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-25] Kotthaus M, Hasan I, Keilig L, Gruner M, Bourauel C, Stark H. Investigation of the retention forces of secondary telescopic crowns made from Pekkton(R) ivory in combination with primary crowns made from four different dental alloys: an in vitro study. Biomed Tech (Berl) 2019; 64: 555-562.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-26] Dawson JH, Hyde B, Hurst M, Harris BT, Lin WS. Polyetherketoneketone (PEKK), a framework material for complete fixed and removable dental prostheses: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119: 867-872.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-27] Oh KC, Park JH, Lee JH, Moon HS. Treatment of a mandibular discontinuity defect by using a fibula free flap and an implant-supported fixed complete denture fabricated with a PEKK framework: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119: 1021-1024.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-28] Choi JW, Yun BH, Jeong CM, Huh JB. Retentive Properties of Two Stud Attachments with Polyetherketoneketone or Nylon Insert in Mandibular Implant Overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018; 33: 1079-1088.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-29] Bae SY, Park JY, Jeong ID, Kim HY, Kim JH, Kim WC. Three-dimensional analysis of marginal and internal fit of copings fabricated with polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) and zirconia. J Prosthodont Res 2017; 61: 106-112.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-30] Brunski JB. Biomechanical considerations in dental implant design. Int J Oral Implantol 1988; 5: 31-34.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-31] Satheesh Kumar P, Satheesh KK, John J, Patil G, Patel R. Force transfer and stress distribution in an implant-supported overdenture retained with a hader bar attachment: a finite element analysis. ISRN Dent 2013; 2013: 369147.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-32] Nishioka RS, de Vasconcellos LG, Joias RP, Rode Sde M. Load-application devices: a comparative strain gauge analysis. Braz Dent J 2015; 26: 258-262.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-33] Broggini N, Cirelli J. Glossary of oral and maxillofacial implants. QuintessenceGoogle Scholar ↗

[refR-34] Isidor F. Influence of forces on peri-implant bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17 Suppl 2: 8-18.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-35] Chapman RJ. Principles of occlusion for implant prostheses: guidelines for position, timing, and force of occlusal contacts. Quintessence Int 1989; 20: 473-480.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-36] Laney WR. Glossary of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017; 32: Gi-G200.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-37] Miyata T, Kobayashi Y, Araki H, Ohto T, Shin K. The influence of controlled occlusal overload on peri-implant tissue. part 4: a histologic study in monkeys. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002; 17: 384-390.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-38] Lundgren D, Laurell L. Biomechanical aspects of fixed bridgework supported by natural teeth and endosseous implants. Periodontol 2000 1994; 4: 23-40.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-39] Morneburg TR, Proschel PA. In vivo forces on implants influenced by occlusal scheme and food consistency. Int J Prosthodont 2003; 16: 481-486.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-40] Conrad HJ, Schulte JK, Vallee MC. Fractures related to occlusal overload with single posterior implants: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 99: 251-256.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-41] Rangert B, Krogh PH, Langer B, Van Roekel N. Bending overload and implant fracture: a retrospective clinical analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995; 10: 326-334.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-42] Hutton JE, Heath MR, Chai JY, Harnett J, Jemt T, Johns RB, McKenna S, McNamara DC, van Steenberghe D, Taylor R, et al. Factors related to success and failure rates at 3-year follow-up in a multicenter study of overdentures supported by Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995; 10: 33-42.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-43] Misch CE. Endosteal implants for posterior single tooth replacement: alternatives, indications, contraindications, and limitations. J Oral Implantol 1999; 25: 80-94.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-44] Appleton RS, Nummikoski PV, Pigno MA, Cronin RJ, Chung KHJCoir. A radiographic assessment of progressive loading on bone around single osseointegrated implants in the posterior maxilla. 2005; 16: 161-167.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-45] Rangert B, Krogh PH, Langer B, Van Roekel NJIjoo, implants m. Bending overload and implant fracture: a retrospective clinical analysis. 1995; 10.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-46] Quirynen M, Naert I, Van Steenberghe DJCoir. Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and future success in the Brånemark® system. 1992; 3: 104-111.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-47] Baggi L, Cappelloni I, Di Girolamo M, Maceri F, Vairo G. The influence of implant diameter and length on stress distribution of osseointegrated implants related to crestal bone geometry: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 100: 422-431.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-48] Pavlin D, Gluhak-Heinrich JJCRiOB, Medicine. Effect of mechanical loading on periodontal cells. 2001; 12: 414-424.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-49] Schwarz MS. Mechanical complications of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11 Suppl 1: 156-158.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-50] Quirynen M, Naert I, van Steenberghe D, Nys L. A study of 589 consecutive implants supporting complete fixed prostheses. Part I: Periodontal aspects. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68: 655-663Google Scholar ↗