• 검색어에 아래의 연산자를 사용하시면 더 정확한 검색결과를 얻을 수 있습니다.
  • 검색연산자
검색연산자 기능 검색시 예
() 우선순위가 가장 높은 연산자 예1) (나노 (기계 | machine))
공백 두 개의 검색어(식)을 모두 포함하고 있는 문서 검색 예1) (나노 기계)
예2) 나노 장영실
| 두 개의 검색어(식) 중 하나 이상 포함하고 있는 문서 검색 예1) (줄기세포 | 면역)
예2) 줄기세포 | 장영실
! NOT 이후에 있는 검색어가 포함된 문서는 제외 예1) (황금 !백금)
예2) !image
* 검색어의 *란에 0개 이상의 임의의 문자가 포함된 문서 검색 예) semi*
"" 따옴표 내의 구문과 완전히 일치하는 문서만 검색 예) "Transform and Quantization"
쳇봇 이모티콘
ScienceON 챗봇입니다.
궁금한 것은 저에게 물어봐주세요.

논문 상세정보

상악 임플랜트 Overdenture에서 Bar Attachment 설계에 따른 유지력 변화에 관한 연구



Statement of problem: It could be hypothesised that attachments, which provide more retention against vortical and horizontal dislodgement, will be associated with more favorable parameters of oral function. Purpose: This study was to provide data of initial retentive force and retention loss of different bar attachment systems recommended for use with maxillary implant overdentures. Material and method: 4 implants were placed in the anterior region of edentulous maxilla, five different systems of bar attachment were fabricated as follows: cantilevered Hader bar using clips (Type 1), Hader bar using clips without cantilever (Type 2), Hader bar using clip and ERA attachment orange male (Type 3), Hader bar using clip and ERA attachment white male (Type 4), and Bar using magnets (Type 5). Each samples were placed in the universal testing machine for determination of retentive forces(at initial and after every 200 cycles up to 1,000 cycles). Results and Conclusion 1. Attachment type 1 showed the biggest initial retentive force followed by type 3, type 2, type 4, and lastly type 5(P<0.001). 2. After 1,000 cycles of repeated removals of attachments, significant loss of retentive forces was taken place except for attachment type 5. 3. After 1,000 cycles of repeated removals, the loss of retentive force between type 1 and type 2, which used Hader bar and clip attachments. was greater in type 1 that had wider clip formation. And between type 3 and type 4, which used ERA attachments, the loss of retentive force was greater in type 4 that had white male attached (P<0.001). 4. After 1.000 cycles of repeated removals, attachment type 3 showed the biggest retentive force followed by type 2, type 4, type 1 and lastly type. 5. There was no significant difference between attachment type 3 and 4, and type 4 and 1(P<0.001).

참고문헌 (33)

  1. Gunne H, Bergman B, Enbom L, Hogstrom J. Masticatory efficiency of complete denture patients. Acta Odontol Scand 1982;40:289-97 
  2. Bergman B, Carlsson GE. Clinical long-term study of complete denture wearers. J Prosthet Dent 1985;53:56-61 
  3. Davis DM. The role of implants in the treatment for the edentulous patients. Int J Prosthodont 1990;3:42-50 
  4. Kampen F, Cune M. Retention and postinsertion maintenance of bar-clip, ball and magnet attachments in mandibular implant overdenture treatment : an in vivo comparison after 3 months of function. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14:720-6 
  5. Naert I, Quirynen M, Theuniers G, Steenberghe D. Prosthetic aspects of osseointegrated fixtures supporting overdentures. A 4-year report. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:671-80 
  6. Naert I, Gizani S, Vuylsteke M. 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;26:195-202 
  7. Breeding LC, Dixon DL, Schmitt S. The effect of simulated function on the retention of bar-clip retained removable prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1996;75:570-3 
  8. Tokuhisa M, Matsushita Y, Koyano K. In vitro study of a mandibular implant overdenture retained with ball, magnet, or bar attachments: Comparison of load transfer and denture stability. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:128-34 
  9. Akaltan F, Can G. Retentive characteristics of different dental magnetic systems. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:422-7 
  10. Walton JN, MacEntee MI. Problems with prostheses on implants: a retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent 1994:71:283-8 
  11. Misch CE. Prosthetic options in implant dentistry. In: Misch CE. Contemporary implant dentistry. 2nd ed Missouri: CV Mosby; 1999. p. 67-72 
  12. Gamborena JI, Hazelton LR, NaBadalung D. Retention of ERA direct overdenture attachments before and after fatigue loading. Int J Prosthodont 1997;10:123-30 
  13. Walton JN, Ruse ND. In vitro changes in clips and bars used to retain implant overdentures. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:482-6 
  14. Zitzmann NU, Marinello CP. A review of clinical and technical consider- ations for fixed and removable implant prostheses in the edentulous mandible. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:65-72 
  15. Petropoulos VC, Smith W. Maximum dislodging forces of implant overdenture stud attachments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:526-35 
  16. Kramer A, Weber H, Benzing U. Implant and prosthetic treatment of the edentulous maxilla using a bar-supported prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:251-5 
  17. Zitzmann NU, Marinello CP. Treatment plan for restoring the edentulous maxilla with implant-supported restorations: removable overdenture versus fixed partial denture design. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:188-96 
  18. Gillings BRD. Magnetic denture retention systems: inexpensive and efficient. International Dental Journal 1984;34:184-97 
  19. Cho HY. Effects of overdenture retention on the axial load of implant in the mandibular implant-supported overdenture. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2000;38:94-107 
  20. Bates JF. Retention of coblat-chromium partial dentures. Dent Practit Dent Rec 1963;14:168-71 
  21. Je HJ, Jeon YC, Jeong CM, Lim JS, Hwaong JS. Effect of anchorage systems and palatal coverage of denture base on load transfer with maxillary implant-supporting overdentures: A three-dimensional photoelastic stress analysis. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2004;42:397-411 
  22. Branemark P-I, Svensson B, van Steenberghe D. Ten-year survival rates of fixed prostheses on four or six implants ad novum Branemark in full edentulism. Clin Oral Impl Res 1995;6:413-7 
  23. Burns DR, Unger JW, Elswick RK. Prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures: Part I-Retention, stability, and tissue response. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73:354-63 
  24. Caldwell RC. Adhesion of foods to teeth. J Dent Res 1962;41:821-32 
  25. Kim JY, Jeong CM. Effect of anchorage systems on load transfer with mandibular implant overdentures: A three-dimensional photoelastic stress analysis. J Korean Acad prosthodont 2002;40:507-24 
  26. Naert I, Gizani S, Vuylsteke M et al. A 5-year randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and un splinted oral implants in the mandiblar overdenture therapy. Part I: Peri-implant outcome. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:170-7 
  27. Setz I, Lee SH, Engel E. Retention of prefabricated attachments for implant stabilized overdentures in the edentulous mandible: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:323-9 
  28. Williams BH, Ochiai KT, Hojo S. Retention of maxillary implant overdeenture bars of different designs. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:603-7 
  29. Gillings BRD, Samant A. Overdenture with magnetic attachments. Dent Clin N Am 1990;34:683-709 
  30. Engquist B, Bergendal T, Kallus T, Linden U. A retrospective multicenter evaluation of osseointegrated implants supporting overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:129-34 
  31. Carr A, Laney WR. Maximum occlusal force levels in patients with osseointegrated oral implant prostheses and patients with complete dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987;2:101-10 
  32. Yea DH, Lim JH, Cho IH. A study on the changes in retention of clips used to retain implant-supported overdenture. J Korean Acad prosthodont 1998;36:566-79 
  33. Naert I. Gizani S, Steenberghe D. Rigidly splinted implants in the resorbed maxilla to retain a hinging overdenture a series of clinical reports for up to 4 years. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:156-64 

이 논문을 인용한 문헌 (0)

  1. 이 논문을 인용한 문헌 없음


원문 PDF 다운로드

  • ScienceON :
  • KCI :

원문 URL 링크

원문 PDF 파일 및 링크정보가 존재하지 않을 경우 KISTI DDS 시스템에서 제공하는 원문복사서비스를 사용할 수 있습니다. (원문복사서비스 안내 바로 가기)

상세조회 0건 원문조회 0건

DOI 인용 스타일