İMPLANT DESTEKLİ OVERDENTURE PROTEZLERDE KULLANILAN HASSAS TUTUCULAR

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 30 Sayı: 3, 519 - 527, 15.07.2020

Mustafa Solmazgül Arife Doğan

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.649191

Öz

Geleneksel diş
hekimliği dişsiz hastalar için sınırlı tedavi seçenekleri sunar; protezlerin
tasarımı doğrudan mevcut ağız koşullarıyla belirlenir. Ancak, tam protez
kullanan bazı hastalar retansiyon veya stabilite kaybı, fonksiyonda düşüş,
konuşma güçlüğü, doku duyarlılığı veya yumuşak doku değişikliğinden dolayı
sorunlar yaşar. Son yıllarda, implant diş hekimliği giderek önem kazanmıştır ve
bu alandaki teknik gelişmelerle hastaların memnuniyetini sağlamak üzere çok
sayıda tedavi yolları ortaya çıkmıştır. Çoğu vakada, implant-tutuculu
overdenture uygulamaları, yalnızca alveolar dokularca desteklenen konvansiyonel
tam protezlere karşı daha iyi bir seçenektir. İmplant-tutuculu overdenture
yapımında kullanılan pek çok ataçman sistemi vardır ve protezlerin başarısı
için her birinin özellik ve endikasyonlarının bilinmesi oldukça önemlidir. Bu
derlemenin amacı, bu alanda yapılan çalışma sonuçları ışığında implant-tutuculu
tam protezlerde kullanılan ataçman sistemlerin seçiminde klinisyenlere yardımcı
olabilmektir.

Anahtar
Kelimeler: Diş implantı, implant destekli protez,
hassas tutuculu protez

Precision Attachments Used on the Implant-Retained
Overdentures

Abstract

Traditional dentistry
provides limited treatment options for the edentulous patients; the design of
the dentures is determined directly to the existing oral conditions. However,
many patients using complete dentures experience problems because of lack of
retention or stability, decrease in function, difficulties in speech, tissue
sensitivity or soft tissue changes. Recently, more attention has been drawn to
implant dentistry, and with the technical developments on this field, a number
of treatment modalities improving patients’ satisfaction are available. In most
instances, implant-retained overdentures are a superior alternative to a
conventional type of complete denture supported only by the alveolar tissues.
There are many attachment systems to fabricate implant-retained overdentures,
and for the success of dentures it is of primary importantce to know the
properties and indications of each one. The purpose of this review is to help
clinicians in selecting attacments systems used with implant-retained complete
dentures in the light of the results of the studies made on this field.

Keywords:
Dental
implant; implant-supported denture; denture precision attachment

Anahtar Kelimeler

ş implantı, implant destekli protez, hassas tutuculu protez

Kaynakça

• 1. Misch CE. Dental İmplant Protezler. Kutay Ö (Çev), 1. Basım. İstanbul: Nobel Tıp Kitabevi; 2009; Chapters: 1,13,14,19.
• 2. Bueno-Samper A, Hernandez-Aliaga M, Calvo-Guirado JL. The implant-supported milled bar overdenture: A literature review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010; 15: 375-8.
• 3. de Grandmont P, Feine JS, Taché R ve ark. Within-subject comparisons of implant-supported mandibular prostheses: Psychometric evaluation. J Dent Res 1994; 73: 1096-104.
• 4. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA ve ark. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002; 17: 587-601.
• 5. Carlsson GE. Clinical morbidity and sequelae of treatment with complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 79: 17-23.
• 6. Wismeijer D, Van Waas MAJ, Vermeeren JIJF, Muldel J, Kalk W. Patient satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures: A comparison of three treatment strategies with ITI-dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997; 26: 263-67.
• 7. Pasciuta M, Grossmann Y, Finger IM. A prosthetic solution to restoring the edentulous mandible with limited interarch space using an implant-tissue-supported overdenture: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2005; 93: 116-20.
• 8. Tokar E, Polat S, Uludağ B. Evaluation of effect of impression techniques to satisfaction of edentulous patients treated with implant-retained overdentures: A pilot study. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg 2017; 27: 100-6.
• 9. Mericske-Stern R. Prosthodontic management of maxillary and mandibular overdentures. In: Feine JS, Carlsson GE, editors. Implant Overdentures: The Standard of Care for Edentulous Patients. 1st ed. Chicago: Quintessence Pub. 2003; Chapter 10: 83-96.
• 10. Batenburg RHK, Meijer HJA, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A. Treatment concept for mandibular overdentures supported by endosseous implants: A literature review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998; 13: 539-45.
• 11. Spiekermann H, Donath K, Hassell T, Jovanovic S, Richter J. Color Atlas of Dental Medicine Implantology. 1st ed New York: Thieme Medical Pub. Inc. 1995; 245-72.
• 12. El-Dayem MAA, Assad AS, Sanad MEE, Mogahed SAAHM. Comparison of prefabricated and custom-made bars used for implant-retained mandibular complete overdentures. Implant Dentistry 2009; 18: 501-11.
• 13. Laverty DP, Green D, Marrison D, Addy L, Thomas MBM. Implant retention systems for implant-retained overdentures. Br Dent J 2017; 222: 347-59.
• 14. Karoussis IK, Brägger U, Salvi GE, Bürgin W, Lang NP. Effect of implant design on survival and success rates of titanium oral implants: A 10‐year prospective cohort study of the ITI® Dental Implant System. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15: 8-17.
• 15. Kim HY, Lee JY, Shin SW, Bryant SR. Attachment systems for mandibular implant overdentures: A systematic review. J Adv Prosthodont 2012; 4: 197-203.
• 16. Mericske‐Stern R, Probst D, Fahrländer F, Schellenberg M. Within‐subject comparison of two rigid bar designs connecting two interforaminal implants: Patients' satisfaction and prosthetic results. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009; 11: 228-37.
• 17. ELsyad MA, Emera RM, Ashmawy TM. Effect of different bar designs on axial and nonaxial retention forces of implant-retained maxillary overdentures: An in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019; 34: 31-8.
• 18. Toia M, Wennerberg A, Torrisi P, Farina V, Corrà E, Cecchinato D. Patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes in implant supported overdentures retained by milled bars: Two‐year follow‐up. J Oral Rehabil 2019; 46: 624-33.
• 19. Rinke S, Rasing H, Gersdorff N, Buergers R, Roediger M. Implant-supported overdentures with different bar designs: A retrospective evaluation after 5-19 years of clinical function. J Adv Prosthodont 2015; 7: 338-43.
• 20. Shafie H. Principles of attachment selection. Clinical and Laboratory Manual of Implant Overdentures. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Sci. 2007; Chapter 4: 31-4.
• 21. Ben-Ur Z, Gorfil C, Shifman A. Anterior implant-supported overdentures. Quintessence Int 1996; 27: 603-6.
• 22. Vasant R, Vasant MK. Retention systems for implant-retained overdentures. Dental Update 2013; 40: 28-31.
• 23. Ellis JS, Burawi G, Walls A, Thomason JM. Patient satisfaction with two designs of implant supported removable overdentures; ball attachment and magnets. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 20: 1293-98.
• 24. Sultana N, Bartlett DW, Suleiman M. Retention of implant‐supported overdentures at different implant angulations: Comparing Locator and ball attachments. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28: 1406-10.
• 25. Kim SM, Choi JW, Jeon YC, Jeong CM, Yun MJ, Lee SH, Huh JB. Comparison of changes in retentive force of three stud attachments for implant overdentures. J Adv Prosthodont 2015; 7: 303-11.
• 26. Ortegón SM, Thompson GA, Agar JR, Taylor TD, Perdikis D. Retention forces of spherical attachments as a function of implant and matrix angulation in mandibular overdentures: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2009; 101: 231-8.
• 27. Choi JW, Bae JH, Jeong CM, Huh JB. Retention and wear behaviors of two implant overdenture stud-type attachments at different implant angulations. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 117: 628-35.
• 28. Nogueira TE, Aguiar FMO, de Barcelos BA, Leles CR. A 2‐year prospective study of single implant mandibular overdentures: Patient‐reported outcomes and prosthodontic events. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29: 541-50.
• 29. Porter JA, Petropoluos VC, Brunski JB. Comparison of load distribution for implant overdenture attachments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002; 17: 651-62.
• 30. Pelekanos S, Sarafianou A, Tsirogiannis P, Kamposiora P, Papavasiliou G. A case series treatment outcome report following 5 years of implant overdenture treatment. Int J Prosthodont 2016; 29: 598-601.
• 31. Uludağ B, Polat S. İmplant destekli overdenture uygulamalarında kullanılan tutucular. Turkiye Klinikleri J Dental Sci-Special Topics 2010; 1:80-6.
• 32. Petropoulos VC, Mante FK. Comparison of retention and strain energies of stud attachments for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont 2011; 20: 286-93.
• 33. Vere J, Hall D, Patel R, Wragg P. Prosthodontic maintenance requirements of implant-retained overdentures using the locator attachment system. Int J Prosthodont 2012; 25: 392-4.
• 34. Schneider AL, Kurtzman GM. Restoration of divergent free-standing implants in the maxilla. J Oral Implantol 2002; 28: 113-6.
• 35. ELsyad MA, Dayekh MA, Khalifa AK. Locator versus bar attachment effect on the retention and stability of implant‐retained maxillary overdenture: An in vitro study. J Prosthodont 2017; 28: 627-36.
• 36. Yoo JS, Kwon KR, Noh K, Lee H, Paek J. Stress analysis of mandibular implant overdenture with locator and bar/clip attachment: Comparative study with differences in the denture base length. J Adv Prosthodont 2017; 9: 143-51.
• 37. Kleis WK, Kämmerer 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: 209-18.
• 38. Seo YH, Bae EB, Kim JW, Lee SH, Yun MJ, Jeong CM, Huh JB. Clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures via Locator implant attachment and Locator bar attachment. J Adv Prosthodont 2016; 8: 313-20.
• 39. Lian M, Zhao K, Wang F, Huang W, Zhang X ve ark. Stud vs bar attachments for maxillary four-implant-supported overdentures: 3-to 9-year results from a retrospective study. International J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019; 34: 936-46.
• 40. Krennmair G, Seemann R, Fazekas A, Ewers R, Piehslinger E. Patient preference and satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or locator attachments: A crossover clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27: 1560-8.
• 41. De Souza RF, Bedos C, Esfandiari S, Makhoul NM, Dagdeviren D ve ark. Single-implant overdentures retained by the Novaloc attachment system: Study protocol for a mixed-methods randomized cross-over trial. Trials 2018; 19: 243-54.
• 42. Lee CK, Agar JR. Surgical and prosthetic planning for a two-implant–retained mandibular overdenture: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95: 102-5.
• 43. Optiloc sistem. Erişim: (https://www.straumann.com/medentika/dk/en/dentistry/mps-multi-platform-systems/optiloc.html). Erişim tarihi: 04/07/2019.
• 44. Mínguez-Tomás N, Alonso-Pérez-Barquero J, Fernández-Estevan L, Vicente-Escuder Á, J. Selva-Otaolaurruchi E. In vitro retention capacity of two overdenture attachment systems: Locator® and Equator®. J Clin Exp Dent 2018;10: 681-86.
• 45. Marin DOM, Leite ARP, Oliveira Junior NMD, Paleari AG, Pero AC, Compagnoni MA. Retention force and wear characteristics of three attachment systems after dislodging cycles. Braz Dent J 2018;29: 576-82.
• 46. Preiskel HW, Preiskel A. Precision attachments for the 21st century. Dental Update 2009; 36: 221-7.
• 47. Ceruti P, Bryant SR, Lee JH, MacEntee MI. Magnet-retained implant-supported overdentures: Review and 1-year clinical report. J Can Dent Assoc 2010; 76: 1-6.
• 48. Takahashi T, Gonda T, Maeda Y. Effect of attachment type on denture strain in maxillary implant overdentures: Part 1. Overdenture with palate. International J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017; 32: 370-82.
• 49. Zhang Y, Chow L, Siu A, Fokas G, Chow TW, Mattheos N. Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) and maintenance events in 2‐implant‐supported mandibular overdenture patients: A 5‐year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019; 30: 261-76.
• 50. Heckmann SM, Schrott A, Graef F, Wichmann MG, Weber HP. Mandibular two-implant telescopic overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15: 560-9.
• 51. Heckmann SM, Heckmann JG, Weber HP. Clinical outcomes of three Parkinson's disease patients treated with mandibular implant overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11: 566-71.
• 52. Krennmair G, Sütö D, Seemann R, Piehslinger E. Removable four implant‐supported mandibular overdentures rigidly retained with telescopic crowns or milled bars: A 3‐year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23: 481-8.