In Vivo Evaluation Of Two Different Protocols For The Fabrication Of Implant-Supported Overdenture Prostheses

Taner Türkay; İsa Yöndem

doi:10.15311/selcukdentj.1739341

In Vivo Evaluation Of Two Different Protocols For The Fabrication Of Implant-Supported Overdenture Prostheses

Abstract

Background: This study focuses on the balanced distribution of relative masticatory pressure in two implant-supported overdenture rehabilitations and evaluates the effectiveness of the treatment protocol in achieving this. This study aims to compare, via a digital occlusal analyzer, the clinical effectiveness of the modified traditional protocol followed in two implant-supported mandibular overdenture rehabilitation with the traditional protocol. Methods: A total of 20 patients were included in the study and with the help of envelope drawing were randomly allocated into two groups: Group I (control/traditional protocol), Group II (test/modified traditional protocol). The distribution of the relative masticatory pressure, the change in masticatory pressure (Δp values) [including presence or absence of premature contacts and balanced/unbalanced pressure distribution] and treatment process management parameters were recorded utilizing Occlusence® for each patient, predelivery and at delivery. Data was statistically evaluated with t tests and chi-square tests, and significance level was set to α = 0.05. Results: No significant differences existed in masticatory pressure distribution and premature contacts between groups predelivery or at delivery. Predelivery, the test group showed significantly more balanced pressure than control’s (p<0.005); however, this difference disappeared at delivery (p>0.370). In the management of the treatment process, the test group exhibited a statistically significant difference than control’s group. (p<0.000). Conclusions: This study has demonstrated that the protocol is effective for achieving balanced distribution of masticatory pressure in two-implant-supported overdentures. However, the findings require validation through larger-scale studies. Keywords: complete denture, mandibular implant-supported overdenture, occlusal equilibration, pantographic record, removable overdenture.

Keywords

Supporting Institution

Selcuk University Scientific Research Projects Institution (BAP)

Project Number

22212012

Ethical Statement

The study protocol and informed consent forms in full accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, as revisited in 2000, were approved by the Ethics Committee of the Non-Interventional Clinical Research Evaluation Commission of the Faculty of Dentistry Selçuk University and received approval (Meeting dated: 24.02.2022, Meeting number: 2022/09).

Thanks

This study was supported by Selcuk University Scientific Research Projects Institution (BAP).

References

1. Janeva NM, Kovacevska G, Elencevski S, Panchevska S, Mijoska A, Lazarevska B. Advantages of CAD/CAM versus conventional complete dentures- a review. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2018; 6(8):1498–502. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2018.308. eCollection 2018 Aug 20.
2. Gray D, Patel J. Implant-supported overdentures: part 1. Br Dent J. 2021; 231(2):94–100. https://doi.org/10.038/s41415-021-3224-4.
3. Fan Y, Shu X, Leung KCM, Lo ECM. Association between masticatory performance and oral conditions in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2023; 129:104395.
4. Yeung AWK, Leung WK. Functional neuroplasticity of adults with partial or complete denture rehabilitation with or without implants: evidence from fMRI studies. Nutrients. 2023; 15:1577.
5. Chowdhary R, Kumararama SS. "Simpli5y" a noval concept for fixed rehabilitation of completely edentulous maxillary and mandibular edentulous arches: a 3-year randomized clinical trial, supported by a numerical analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018; 20(5):749 755.
6. Gonzalez-Gonzalez I, deLlanos-Lanchares H, Brizuela-Velasco A, et al. Complications of fixed full-arch implant-supported metal-ceramic prostheses. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(12):4250.
7. Sutariya PV, Shah HM, Patel SD, Upadhyay HH, Pathan MR, Shah RP. Mandibular implant-supported overdenture: a systematic review and meta-analysis for optimum selection of attachment system. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2021; 21(4):319-327.
8. Vazouras K, Taylor T. Full-arch removable vs fixed implant restorations: a literature review of factors to consider regarding treatment choice and decision-making in elderly patients. Int J Prosthodont. 2021; 34: s93-s101.

9. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, et al. The McGill Consensus Statement on Overdentures. Int J Prosthodont. 2002; 15:413-414.
10. Thomason JM, Feine J, Exley C et al. Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the firstchoice standard of care for edentulous patients - the York Consensus Statement. Br Dent J. 2009; 207:185-186.
11. Van de Winkel, T., Delfos, F., van Oirschot, B., Maal, T., Adang, E., & Meijer, G. Budget Impact Analysis: Digital Workflow Significantly Reduces Costs of Implant Supported Overdentures (IODs). Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2025; 27(1): e13413. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13413.
12. Wakam R, Benoit A, Mawussi KB, Gorin C. Evaluation of retention, wear, and maintenance of attachment systems for single- or two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a systematic review. Materials (Basel, Switzerland). 2022; 15:1933.
13. de Souza RF, Jabbar AA, Jafarpour D, Bedos C, Esfandiari S, Makhoul NM, et al. Single-implant overdentures retained by a novel attachment: A mixed methods crossover randomized clinical trial. JDR Clin Trans Res. 2024; 9:27–41.
14. Slot W, Raghoebar GM, Cune MS, Vissink A, Meijer HJA. Maxillary overdentures supported by four or six implants in the anterior region: 10-year randomized controlled trial results. J Clin Periodontol. 2023; 50(1):36-44.
15. Van de Winkel, T., Delfos, F., van der Heijden, O., Bronkhorst, E., Verhamme, L., & Meijer, G. Fully digital versus conventional workflow: Are removable complete overdentures equally good? A randomized crossover trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2025; 27(1): e13398. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13398.
16. Tayari, O., Slimene, W., & Jaouadi, J. Risk factors for implant-supported overdenture failures: A systematic review. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2024; 24(2): 109–121. https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_18_24.
17. Prasad S., Faverani, L. P., Santiago Junior, J. F., Sukotjo, C., & Yuan, J. C. Attachment systems for mandibular implant-supported overdentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Prosthet Dent. 2024; 132(2): 354–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.08.004
18. Abdelghany, A. A., Fouad, M. M., Emera, R. M. K., Askar, O., & Yaseen, A. A. M. Impact of mandibular 4-implant overdenture base construction techniques on assessment of occlusion with digital occlusion analysis system (clinical crossover study). BMC oral health. 2025; 25(1): 853. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-06228-3.
19. Sokolowski, A., Huber, S., Arefnia, B., Pichler, A., Lorenzoni, M., & Sokolowski, A. The influence of prosthetic treatments and implant-supported prostheses on posterior mandibular ridge atrophy: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Oral Health. 2025; 25.
20. Jauregi M, Amezua X, Iturrate M, Solaberrieta E. Repeatability and reproductibility of 2 digital occlusal analyzers for measuring the right-and left-side balance of occlusal contact forces: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2024;132(1):179–87.
21. Sutter B. Digital occlusion analyzers: a product review of T-Scan 10 and occlusense. Adv Dent Technol Techniques. 2019;1–31.
22. Sadowsky S. J. Occlusal overload with dental implants: a review. Int J Implant Dent. 2019; 5(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-019-0180-8
23. Sadowsky SJ. Peri-implantitis after 40 years: Evidence, mechanisms, and implications: A mapping review. J Prosdent. 2024; 132(6):1215-1225.
24. Şirin Sarıbal G., Ersu N., & Canger E. M. Effects of conventional complete dentures and implant-supported overdentures on alveolar ridge height and mandibular bone structure: 2-year and 6-year follow-up study. Clin Oral Investig. 2022; 26(9):5643–5652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04519-5.
25. Kuriakose, R., Nair, A., Bamigdad, M. S., Pai, D. R., Rahman, N. A., & Paul, L. Impact of Occlusal Schemes on Implant-Supported Overdentures. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2024; 16(Suppl 4), S3257–S3259. https://doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_795_24.
26. Brandt S, Winter A, Lauer HC, Romanos G. Retrospective clinical study of 842 clasp-retained removable partial dentures with a metal framework: survival, maintenance needs, and biologic findings. Quintessence Int. 2024; 55(9):704–11.
27. Van Brakel R, Cune MS, Van Winkelhoff AJ, De Putter C, Verhoeven JW, Van der Reijden W. Early bacterial colonization and soft tissue health around zirconia and titanium abutments: an in vivo study in man. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; 22(6):571–7.
28. Elawady D, Adam MA, Allam H, Mahmoud II, Alqutaibi AY, Shon AA. Single implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a literature review. Cureus. 2024; 16(1): e52486.
29. Kim Y, Oh TJ, Misch CE, Wang HL. Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004; 16:26-35.
30. Jacobson TE, Krol AJ. A contemporary review of the factors involved in complete dentures. Part II: Stability. J Prosthet Dent. 1983; 9(2):165-172.
31. Olivieri F, Kang KH, Hirayama H, Maness WL. New method for analyzing complete denture occlusion using the center of force concept: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 1998; 80(5):519-523.
32. Akácsos SR, Kis M, Székely M, Popşor S, Dörner K. Jaw relationship assessment for removable complete dentures using the t-scan computerised system - a case report. Med Pharm Rep. 2019; 92.
33. Homsi G, Kumar A, Almotairy N, Wester E, Trulsson M, Grigoriadis A Assessment of masticatory function in older individuals with bimaxillary implant-supported fixed prostheses or with a natural dentition: a case-control study. J Prosthet Dent. 2023; 129:871-877.
34. Bozhkova T, Musurlieva N, Slavchev D, Dimitrova M. Occlusal indicators used in dental practice: A survey study. Biomed Res Int. 2021; 2021:2177385.
35. Qadeer S, Kerstein R, Kim RJY, Huh JB, Shin SW. Relationship between articulation paper mark size and percentage of force measured with computerized occlusal analysis. J Adv Prosthodont. 2012; 4:7–12.
36. Saraçoǧlu A, Özpinar B. In vivo and in vitro evaluation of occlusal indicator sensitivity. J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 88:522-526.
37. Sutter BA. A digital poll of dentists testing the accuracy of paper mark subjective interpretation. Cranio. 2018; 36:396-403.
38. Lee W, Kwon HB, Kim MJ, Lim YJ. Determination of the reliability and repeatability of a quantitative occlusal analyzer by using a piezoelectric film sensor: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2022; 127:331–337.
39. Jauregi, M., Amezua, X., Iturrate, M., & Solaberrieta, E. Repeatability and reproducibility of 2 digital occlusal analyzers for measuring the right- and left-side balance of occlusal contact forces: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2024; 132(1):179–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.07.026.
40. Posselt U. Physiology of occlusion and rehabilitation. 1962. Blackwell scientific publications, 31-39.
41. Davies S, Gray RM. What is occlusion? Br Dent J 2001; 8:191(5):235-8, 241-5.
42. Popa ST, Popescu SM, Constantinescu MV. Occlusal equilibration between option and clinical realty. Stoma Edu J. 2015; 2(1):57-63.
43. Brizuela-Velasco A, Álvarez-Arenal Á, Ellakuria-Echevarria J, del Río-Highsmith J, Santamaría-Arrieta G, Martín-Blanco N. Influence of articulating paper thickness on occlusal contacts registration: a preliminary report. Int J Prosthodont. 2015; 28:360-362.
44. Villa H. Double-processing technique for complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1969; 22(4): 500-5.
45. Einarsdottir ER, Geminiani A, Chochlidakis K, Feng C, Tsigarida A, Ercoli C. Dimensional stability of double-processed complete denture bases fabricated with compression molding, injection molding, and CAD-CAM subtraction milling. J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124(1):116-121.
46. Perea-Lowery L, Minja IK, Lassila L, Ramakrishnaiah R, Vallittu PK. Assessment of CAD-CAM polymers for digitally fabricated complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 125(1):175–81. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-021-324-4.
47. El Khamisy, N. E. S., Emera, R. M. K., Elmanci, T. M., & Aboelez, M. A. Effect of two different digital construction techniques of mandibular implant-assisted overdentures on peri-implant bone loss and posterior ridge resorption: a 3-year prospective randomized clinical trial. BMC oral health, 2025; 25(1), 1040. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-06425-0
48. El-Shaheed NHL, Salama R, Faramawy AMG, Mostafa AZH. Tissue surface adaptation and clinical performance of CAD-CAM milled versus conventional implant-assisted mandibular overdenture. Int J Dent. 2023; 11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8220233.
49. Helal MA, Abdelrahim RA, Zeidan AAEJJP. Comparison of dimensional changes between CAD-CAM milled complete denture bases and 3D printed complete denture bases: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont. 2023; 32(S1):11–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13538.
50. Schierz O, Klinger N, Schön G, Reissmann DR. The reliability of computerized condylar path angle assessment. Int J Comput Dent. 2014;17(1):35-51.
51. Valenti, C., Massironi, D., Truffarelli, T., Grande, F., Catapano, S., Eramo, S., Tribbiani, G., & Pagano, S. Accuracy of a new photometric jaw tracking system in the frontal plane at different recording distances: An in-vitro study. J Dent. 2024; 148, 105245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105245.
52. L. Lepidi, F. Grande, G. Baldassarre, C. Suriano, J. Li, S. Catapano, Preliminary clinical study of the accuracy of a digital axiographic recording system for the assessment of sagittal condylar inclination, J. Dent. 2023; 135:104583, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104583.
53. M. Revilla-Le´on, D.E. Kois, J.M. Zeitler, W. Att, J.C. Kois, An overview of the digital occlusion technologies: intraoral scanners, jaw tracking systems, and computerized occlusal analysis devices, J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2023; https://doi.org/10.1111/ jerd.13044.
54. Mohamed, S. M., & ElGhannam, M. M. S. A comparative assessment of condylar inclination in completely edentulous patients using cone beam computed tomography and Arcus digma II. J Prosthet Dent. 2024; S0022-3913(24)00410-4. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.05.031.
55. Revilla-León M, Fernández-Estevan L, Barmak AB, Kois JC, Pérez- Barquero JA. Accuracy of the maxillomandibular relationship at centric relation position recorded by using 3 different intraoral scanners with or without an optical jaw tracking system: An in vivo pilot study. J Dent. 2023; 132:104478.
56. Revilla-León M, Agustín-Panadero R, Zeitler JM, et al. Differences in maxillomandibular relationship recorded at centric relation when using a conventional method, four intraoral scanners, and a jaw tracking system: A clinical study. J Prosthet Dent. 2024; 132:964–972.
57. Zhou, Z., Wang, S., Yuan, Q., Yue, L., & Yang, S. Evaluation of the accuracy of a fully digital method of measuring sagittal condylar inclination. Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology. 2024; 42(1), 67–74. https://doi.org/10.7518/hxkq.2024.2023242.
58. Yilmaz B, Azak AN, Alp G, Ekşi H. Use of CAD-CAM technology for the fabrication of complete dentures: an alternative technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118:140-143.
59. Avelino MEL, Costa RTF, Vila-Nova TEL, Vasconcelos BCdE, Pellizzer EP, Moraes SLD. Clinical performance and patient-related outcome measures of digitally fabricated complete dentures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2024; 132:748.
60. Zandinejad A, Floriani F, Lin WS, Naimi‐Akbar A. Clinical outcomes of milled, 3D‐printed, and conventional complete dentures in edentulous patients: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Prosthodont. 2024; 33:736-747.
61. Maveli TC, Suprono MS, Kattadiyil MT, Goodacre CJ, Bahjri K. In vitro comparison of the maxillary occlusal plane orientation obtained with five facebow systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114:566-573.
62. Lux LH, Thompson GA, Waliszewski KJ, Ziebert GJ. Comparison of the Kois Dento-facial analyzer system with an earbow for mounting a maxillary cast. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114:432-439.
63. Thompson GA, Nick C, Francisco P, Lux L, Wiens JP. Comparison of two arbitrary cast transfer systems with a kinematic facebow for mounting a maxillary cast on a semiadjustable articulator. J Prosthet Dent. 2022; 128:597-603.
64. Goldstein G, Goodacre C. Selecting a virtual articulator: an analysis of the factors available with mechanical articulators and their potential need for inclusion with virtual articulators. J Prosthodont. 2023; 32:10-17.
65. Suman V, Sonnahalli NK, Chowdhary R. Use of Facebow device in prosthodontics: A systematic review on randomized control trials. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2021; 21(1):11-18. doi:10.4103/jips.jips_197_20.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Oral Implantology, Prosthodontics

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Taner Türkay ^*
0000-0002-8052-7157
Türkiye

İsa Yöndem
0000-0001-9608-7830
Türkiye

Publication Date

April 27, 2026

Submission Date

July 10, 2025

Acceptance Date

November 3, 2025

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 13 Number: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1739341

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA62FN32KY

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Türkay, T., & Yöndem, İ. (2026). In Vivo Evaluation Of Two Different Protocols For The Fabrication Of Implant-Supported Overdenture Prostheses. Selcuk Dental Journal, 13(1), 65-73. https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1739341

AMA

1.Türkay T, Yöndem İ. In Vivo Evaluation Of Two Different Protocols For The Fabrication Of Implant-Supported Overdenture Prostheses. Selcuk Dent J. 2026;13(1):65-73. doi:10.15311/selcukdentj.1739341

Chicago

Türkay, Taner, and İsa Yöndem. 2026. “In Vivo Evaluation Of Two Different Protocols For The Fabrication Of Implant-Supported Overdenture Prostheses”. Selcuk Dental Journal 13 (1): 65-73. https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1739341.

EndNote

Türkay T, Yöndem İ (April 1, 2026) In Vivo Evaluation Of Two Different Protocols For The Fabrication Of Implant-Supported Overdenture Prostheses. Selcuk Dental Journal 13 1 65–73.

IEEE

[1]T. Türkay and İ. Yöndem, “In Vivo Evaluation Of Two Different Protocols For The Fabrication Of Implant-Supported Overdenture Prostheses”, Selcuk Dent J, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 65–73, Apr. 2026, doi: 10.15311/selcukdentj.1739341.

ISNAD

Türkay, Taner - Yöndem, İsa. “In Vivo Evaluation Of Two Different Protocols For The Fabrication Of Implant-Supported Overdenture Prostheses”. Selcuk Dental Journal 13/1 (April 1, 2026): 65-73. https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1739341.

JAMA

1.Türkay T, Yöndem İ. In Vivo Evaluation Of Two Different Protocols For The Fabrication Of Implant-Supported Overdenture Prostheses. Selcuk Dent J. 2026;13:65–73.

MLA

Türkay, Taner, and İsa Yöndem. “In Vivo Evaluation Of Two Different Protocols For The Fabrication Of Implant-Supported Overdenture Prostheses”. Selcuk Dental Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, Apr. 2026, pp. 65-73, doi:10.15311/selcukdentj.1739341.

Vancouver

1.Taner Türkay, İsa Yöndem. In Vivo Evaluation Of Two Different Protocols For The Fabrication Of Implant-Supported Overdenture Prostheses. Selcuk Dent J. 2026 Apr. 1;13(1):65-73. doi:10.15311/selcukdentj.1739341