アブストラクト（32巻1号：The Bulletin of Kanagawa Dental College）

The Bulletin of Kanagawa Dental College

English

Title　： Load Transfer by Magnetic and Resilient Attachments for Mandibular Implant Overdentures.
Subtitle　： ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Authors　： Satoru Hojo1), Kent T.Ochiai, Steven S.Sadowsky2), Minoru Toyoda1), Angelo A.Caputo2)
Authors（kana）　：
Organization　： 1)Department of Prosthetics, Kanagawa Dental College, 2)Division of Advanced Prosthodontics, Biomaterials, and Hospital Dentistry, USLA School of Dentistry
Journal　： The Bulletin of Kanagawa Dental College
Volume　： 32
Number　： 1
Page　： 15-19
Year/Month　： 2004 / 3
Article　： Original article
Publisher　： Kanagawa Odontological Society
Abstract　： [Abstract] A prior study evaluated the load transfer characteristics of four implant splinted and unsplinted mandibular overdenture designs. The comparative load transfer effects of different magnets or conventional mechanical retention attachments for an unsplinted two implant overdenture have not been investigated. The purpose of this study was to compare the load transfer characteristics of two implant mandibular overdentures with four different unsplinted attachments. Methods : A photoelastic model of an edentulous mandible was fabricated with two 3.75 × 13 mm screw type implants (3i Osseotite, Palm Beach Gardens, FL) in the canine areas. Four dentures were identically fabricated using clear heat cured denture resin. Four attachment designs were incorporated : Dome magnet (MAGFIT-IP-3i-D, Aichi Steel Corp.; Japan), Flat magnet (MAGFIT-IP-3i-F, Aichi Steel Corp), Locator (Zest Anchors, Escondido, CA), ERA (Sterngold Attachments ; Attleboro, MA). The simulatedocclusal loads applied were : a) bilateral equal loads on the first molars, b) unilateral load on the left first molar. The resulting stresses were photographed in the field of a circular polariscope. Results : Load transfer to the mucosal support areas was observed for all loadings of the tested designs. Equal bilateral loading generated the highest stress in the posterior simulated mucosal support areas for the dome and flat magnet attachments, followed by the locator then the ERA attachments. The unilateral molar loads produced minimal differences between the attachment designs. Conclusions : For the unsplinted two implant supported overdenture designs evaluated, there were slight differences in load transfer between the implant and soft tissue supporting areas with the magnet and resilient attachments.
Practice　： Dentistry
Keywords　： Implant overdentures, Overdenture attachment, Magnet attachment, Photoelastic Analysis