Journal of Craniomaxillofacial Research 2017. 4(3):406-409.

An innovative design in a mandibular overdenture with too-lingualy-inserted implants: A case report
Mehran Bahrami, Roya Hashemi, Seyed Mehran Falahchai

Abstract


Prosthetic rehabilitation of patients with unfavorable-implant-position or problematic implant angulation
is complicated. A completely-edentulous-patient with lower lip squamous-cell-carcinoma had undergone resective surgery twice. After radiotherapy of a total dose of 60cGy of 30 sessions
for about 3 months, moderate trismus was developed. Mouth commisurotomy was accomplished in order to insert three implants in the mandibular-anterior-region. Two distal implants were excessively tilted to achieve better biomechanical advantages and to obtain greater anterior-posterior-
distance which made prosthetic rehabilitation of the patient challenging. In the mandibular-custom-tray a lingual “window” was designed to accommodate the open-impression-copings.
Trial-denture-bases were tried-in. A putty index was recorded from arranged-mandibular-teeth. According to this index, a zigzag bar similar to letter “M” was designed using custom abutments. So that three ball anchors were placed on this “M-designed-bar” (MDB) more labial than the inserted
implants to support the mandibular-implant-supported-overdenture. Using MDB permits teeth-set-up with minimal interfere with tongue function. The major disadvantage of this design is its inevitable-buccal-cantilever. Distolingual areas of mandibular tray were border-molded excessively in order to overcome this problem and to increase stability and also to reduce detrimental-lateral forces to implants.
Key words: Dental Implants, Implant-Supported Denture Prosthesis.

Keywords


Dental Implants; Implant-Supported Denture Prosthesis

Full Text:

PDF

References


Batenburg RH, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A. Treatment concept for mandibular overden- tures supported by endosseous implants: a litera- ture review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998;13(4):539-45.

Barão VAR, Assunção WG, Tabata LF, Delben JA, Gomes ÉA, de Sousa EAC, et al. Finite element analysis to compare complete denture and im- plant-retained overdentures with different attach- ment systems. J Craniofac Surg. 2009; 20(4):1066-71.

Naert I, Quirynen M, Theuniers G, van Steen- berghe D. Prosthetic aspects of osseointegrated fixtures supporting overdentures. A 4-year re- port. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 1991.;65(5):671-80.

Naert I, Gizani S, Vuylsteke M, Van Steenberghe D. A 5‐year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction. J Oral Rehabil. 1999; 26(3):195-202.

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

Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Brånemark P-I, Jemt T. Longterm follow-up study of osseointe- grated implants in the treatment of totally eden- tulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1990;5(4):347-59.

Merickske-Stern R. Clinical evaluation of overden ture restorations supported by osseointegrated ti- tanium implants: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1990;5(4).

Engquist B, Bergendal T, Kallus T, Linden U. A retrospective multicenter evaluation of osseointe- grated implants supporting overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1988;3(2).

Heckmann SM, Wichmann MG, Winter W, Meyer M, Weber HP. Overdenture attachment selection and the loading of implant and denture‐bearing area. Part 2: A methodical study using five types of attachment. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001;12(6):640-7.

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

Yokoyama S, Wakabayashi N, Shiota M, Ohyama T. The influence of implant location and length on stress distribution for three-unit implant-support- ed posterior cantilever fixed partial dentures. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2004;91(3):234-40.

Sertgöz A, Güvener S. Finite element analysis of the effect of cantilever and implant length on stress distribution in an implant-supported fixed prosthesis. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.1996; 76(2):165-9.

Wennström J, Zurdo J, Karlsson S, Ekestubbe A, Gröndahl K, Lindhe J. Bone level change at im- plant‐supported fixed partial dentures with and without cantilever extension after 5 years in function. J Clin Periodontol. 2004; 31(12):1077-83.

White S, Caputo A, Anderkvist T. Effect of canti- lever length on stress transfer by implant-support- ed prostheses. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.1994; 71(5):493-9.

Naert I, Quirynen M, Hooghe M, van Steenberghe D. A comparative prospective study of splinted and unsplinted Branemark implants in mandib- ular overdenture therapy: a preliminary report. J Prosthet Dent. 1994; 71(5):486-92.

Celik G, Uludag B. Photoelastic stress analysis of various retention mechanisms on 3-implant-re tained mandibular overdentures. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2007; 97(4):229-35.

Tashkandi EA, Lang BR, Edge MJ. Analysis of strain at selected bone sites of a cantilevered im plant-supported prosthesis. The Journal of pros- thetic dentistry. 1996; 76(2):158-64.

Sadowsky SJ, Caputo AA. Stress transfer of four mandibular implant overdenture cantilever de- signs. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2004;92(4):328-36.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly.