Journal of Dental Sciences (Oct 2022)

In vitro study of the effect of implant position and attachment type on stress distribution of implant-assisted removable partial dentures

  • Sai Tun Naing,
  • Manabu Kanazawa,
  • Tamaki Hada,
  • Maiko Iwaki,
  • Yuriko Komagamine,
  • Anna Miyayasu,
  • Yoko Uehara,
  • Shunsuke Minakuchi

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 17, no. 4
pp. 1697 – 1703

Abstract

Read online

Background/purpose: Implant assisted removable partial dentures (IARPDs) improved biomechanical behavior of removable partial dentures (RPDs), but information of the effect of attachment type and implant position is limited. This study aimed to investigate the effect of implant position and attachment type on the stress distribution of IARPDs. Material and methods: Four implants, 10 mm in length and 4.1 mm in diameter, were bilaterally placed close to first premolar and second molar regions of a mandibular Kennedy class I model having artificial dentition from canine to canine, vertical to the occlusal plane. Five IARPDs were fabricated to accommodate locator and magnetic attachments. Strain gauges were placed on the model surface to measure the strain around implants during loading. Unilateral vertical loading was applied to the right first molar area with magnitude of 120 N and crosshead speed of 10 mm/min. Measurements were recorded under following conditions: premolar IARPDs with locator or magnetic attachments, molar IARPDs with locator or magnetic attachments. Two-way multiple analysis of variance was performed to compare the maximum principal strain (MPS) around the implants with a significance level of 0.05. Results: Implant position had significant effect on the MPS of IARPD on loading and nonloading sides while attachment type only significant on nonloading side. Molar implants showed larger MPS than premolar implants with both locator and magnetic attachments during unilateral loading. Conclusion: The stress distribution of the IARPD is significantly affected by implant position wherein anteriorly placed implants exhibit lower MPS than relatively posteriorly placed implants.

Keywords