바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

logo

메뉴
search

ISSN : 0376-4672

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

54권 12호

Comparative study of prosthetic complications associated with the bar-clip, milled bar, and Locator attachments for implant overdentures: a retrospective study

윤계원 (동아대학교병원)
황희성 (동아대학교)
김철훈 (동아대학교)
허지예 (동아대학교 의료원)
김복주 (동아대학교)
김정한 (동아대학교 의료원 치과학교실 구강악안면외과)
대한치과의사협회지 / The Journal of the Korean Dental Association, (P)0376-4672; (E)2713-7961
2016, v.54 no.12, pp.1024-1034
https://doi.org/10.22974/jkda.2016.54.12.005
윤계원, 황희성, 김철훈, 허지예, 김복주, & 김정한. (2016). . 대한치과의사협회지, 54(12), 1024-1034, https://doi.org/10.22974/jkda.2016.54.12.005

Abstract

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to compare the type and frequency of prosthetic complications associated with attachment types for implant overdenture. Material and methods. In this retrospective study, 38 patients (mean age, 63.5 years) have been treated with implant overdentures from 2007 to 2014. Ten patients received a bar-clip attachment. Eleven patients had received a milled bar with Locator attachment. Seventeen patients had received a Locator attachment. The mean follow-up period was 36.9 months (range, 15-83 months). The type and frequency of prosthetic complications was recorded. The frequency was analyzed to determine the statistical difference among the 3 different attachments by using one-way ANOVA ( = .05) and Bonferroni post hoc method at a 5% level of significance. Results. The total number of prosthetic complications was higher in the bar-clip attachment (55 events) than in the milled bar with Locator attachment (39 events) and the Locator attachment (34 events). There were no statistically significant differences, and the most common prosthetic complication was the loss of retention. In the bar-clip attachment group, the average frequency of prosthetic complications was 3.0 events per prosthesis during the first year. In the milled bar with Locator attachment and Locator attachment groups, the average frequencies were 1.45 events and 2.35 events, respectively. Statistically significant differences were observed in the frequency of the complication. (p = .043) Conclusions. Compared to the bar-clip attachment, implant overdentures that use milled bars with the Locator attachment have a significantly lower incidence of prosthetic complications in the first year of follow-up after placement.

keywords
implant overdenture, bar-clip, milled bar, Locator, complication.

참고문헌

1.

1. Dudic A, Mericske-Stern R. Retention mechanisms and prosthetic complications of implant-supported mandibular overdentures: long-term results. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2002;4(4):212-219.

2.

2. Attard NJ, Zarb GA. Long-term treatment outcomes in edentulous patients with implant overdentures:the Toronto study. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17(4):425-433.

3.

3. 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 2009;22(5):429-440.

4.

4. 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(6):479-483.

5.

5. Tabata LF, Assuncao WG, Barao VA, Gomes EA, Delben JA, de Sousa EA, Rocha EP. Comparison of single-standing or connected implants on stress distribution in bone of mandibular overdentures: a two-dimensional finite element analysis. J Craniofac Surg 2010;21(3):696-702.

6.

6. Sadowsky SJ. Mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 86(5):468-473.

7.

7. Payne AG, Solomons YF. Mandibular implantsupported overdentures: a prospective evaluation of the burden of prosthodontic maintenance with 3different attachment systems. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13(3):246-253.

8.

8. Gotfredsen K, Holm B. Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or bar attachments: a randomized prospective 5-year study. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13(3):125-130.

9.

9. Hebel KS, Galindo D, Gajjar RC. Implant position record and implant position cast: minimizing errors, procedures and patient visits in the fabrication of the milled-bar prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83(1):107-116.

10.

10. Tipton PA. The milled bar-retained removable bridge implant-supported prosthesis: a treatment alternative for the edentulous maxilla. J Esthet Restor Dent 2002;14(4):208-216.

11.

11. Trakas T, Michalakis K, Kang K, Hirayama H. Attachment systems for implant retained overdentures: a literature review. Implant Dent 2006;15(1):24-34.

12.

12. Alsiyabi AS, Felton DA, Cooper LF. The role of abutment-attachment selection in resolving inadequate interarch distance: a clinical report. J Prosthodont 2005;14(3):184-190.

13.

13. Lee CK, Agar JR. Surgical and prosthetic planning for a two-implant-retained mandibular overdenture:a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95(2):102-105.

14.

14. Chang H, Hsieh Y, Hsu M. Long-term survival rate of implant-supported overdentures with various attachment systems: A 20-year retrospective study. Journal of Dental Sciences 2015;10(1):55-60.

15.

15. Hemmings KW, Schmitt A, Zarb GA. Complications and maintenance requirements for fixed prostheses and overdentures in the edentulous mandible: a 5-year report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9(2):191-196.

16.

16. Krennmair G, Krainhofner M, Piehslinger E. Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with a milled bar: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22(6):987-994.

17.

17. Cakarer S, Can T, Yaltirik M, Keskin C. Complications associated with the ball, bar and Locator attachments for implant-supported overdentures. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011;16(7):e953-9.

18.

18. Bilhan H, Geckili O, Sulun T, Bilgin T. A quality-oflife comparison between self-aligning and ball attachment systems for 2-implant-retained mandibular overdentures. J Oral Implantol 2011;37Spec No:167-173.

19.

19. Cordaro L, di Torresanto VM, Petricevic N, Jornet PR, Torsello F.?Single unit attachments improve peri-implant soft tissue conditions in mandibular overdentures supported by four implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24(2):536-542.

20.

20. Walton JN, MacEntee MI. A prospective study on the maintenance of implant prostheses in private practice. Int J Prosthodont 1997;10(5):453-458.

21.

21. Langer A. Telescope retainers for removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1981;45(1):37-43.

22.

22. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90(2):121-132.

23.

23. Misch CE. Consideration of biomechanical stress in treatment with dental implants. Dent Today 2006;25(5):80, 82, 84-5; quiz 85.

24.

24. Choi M, Acharya V, Berg RW, Marotta J, Green CC, Barbizam JV, White SN.?Resinous denture base fracture resistance: effects of thickness and teeth. Int J Prosthodont 2012; 25(1):53-59.

25.

25. Mackie A, Lyons K, Thomson WM, Payne AG. Mandibular two-implant overdentures: three-year prosthodontic maintenance using the locator attachment system. Int J Prosthodont 2011;24(4):328-331.

26.

26. Kleis WK, Kammerer PW, Hartmann S, Al-Nawas B, Wagner W. A comparison of three different attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: one-year report. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12(3):209-218.

27.

27. Payne AG, Solomons YF. The prosthodontic maintenance requirements of mandibular mucosaand implant-supported overdentures: a review of the literature. Int J Prosthodont 2000; 13(3):238-243.

logo

논문 투고
OA 정책