Retention of Implant Retained Obturator Using Two Implant Placement Configurations for Maxillectomy Cases: In-vitro Study

Overview

Journal BMC Oral Health

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2024 Sep 10

PMID 39256714

Authors

Nourhan I Aboseada

Faten S Mohamed

Sonia M El-Shabrawy

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Implant-retained obturators for maxillectomy cases have several advantages over traditional obturators but prosthetic design for specific conditions after maxillary resection has several challenges and the appropriate implant placement configuration is essential for improving retention and the stability of the implant-retained obturator.

Objectives: The present study aimed to assess the retention force of using linear and nonlinear implant placement configurations using ball and socket attachment in implant-retained obturators at the initial retention and after simulation of six months of use.

Materials And Methods: Two identical epoxy resin maxillary models of a completely edentulous unilateral maxillary defect (Brown's class IIb) were used for implant placement, in the first model three implants were arranged with linear placement configuration, and in the second model three implants were arranged in nonlinear placement configuration. For proper sample sizing, 26 models and obturator were used. Two equal groups of obturators (13 for each group) were constructed, each with a different implant placement configuration. Both groups used the same attachment design (a non-splinted ball attachment). Using a cyclic loading machine that served as a dental insertion and removal simulator, each study group was subjected to 500 tension-compression cycles simulating 6 months of use. Using the universal testing machine, each obturator was removed at a speed of 50 mm/min for the crosshead. peak load to dislodgement was measured at the initial retention and after the simulations of six months of use. Data were analyzed using independent and paired t-tests while percent change was analyzed using the Mann Whitney U test.

Results: There were a statistically significant differences in retention between the nonlinear implant placement configuration for Brown's class IIb maxillectomy and the linear implant placement configuration at initial retention evaluation with p-value of < 0.0001 and after simulation of six months of usage with p-value of < 0.0001 Also, after simulation of 6 months of use group I lose - 24.87 (10.16) % of its retention while group II lose - 17.49 (7.78) %.

Conclusions: Non-linear implant placement is more retentive at the initial retention and after simulation of six months of use than linear and loses less retention after usage.

References

Parr G, Tharp G, Rahn A . Prosthodontic principles in the framework design of maxillary obturator prostheses. 1989. J Prosthet Dent. 2005; 93(5):405-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.02.017. View

Lee C, Karl M, Kelly J . Evaluation of test protocol variables for dental implant fatigue research. Dent Mater. 2009; 25(11):1419-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.07.003. View

Said M, Otomaru T, Sumita Y, Leung K, Khan Z, Taniguchi H . Systematic review of literature: functional outcomes of implant-prosthetic treatment in patients with surgical resection for oral cavity tumors. J Investig Clin Dent. 2016; 8(2). DOI: 10.1111/jicd.12207. View

Misch C, Silc J . Using implant positions: treatment planning canine and first molar rules. Dent Today. 2009; 28(8):66, 68, 70-1. View

Sun Q, Zhang W, Gao M, Yu S, Mao C, Guo C . Does the Brown classification of maxillectomy defects have prognostic prediction for patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma involving the maxilla?. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020; 49(9):1135-1142. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2020.01.021. View

Puryer J, Forbes-Haley C . An Implant-Retained Obturator – A Case Study. Dent Update. 2017; 44(5):415-8, 421-2. DOI: 10.12968/denu.2017.44.5.415. View

Kobayashi M, Srinivasan M, Ammann P, Perriard J, Ohkubo C, Muller F . Effects of in vitro cyclic dislodging on retentive force and removal torque of three overdenture attachment systems. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 25(4):426-34. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12156. View

Glas H, Vosselman N, de Visscher S . The use of 3D virtual surgical planning and computer aided design in reconstruction of maxillary surgical defects. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020; 28(2):122-128. DOI: 10.1097/MOO.0000000000000618. View

Setz I, Lee S, Engel E . Retention of prefabricated attachments for implant stabilized overdentures in the edentulous mandible: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 1998; 80(3):323-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(98)70133-7. View

10.

Moreno M, Skoracki R, Hanna E, Hanasono M . Microvascular free flap reconstruction versus palatal obturation for maxillectomy defects. Head Neck. 2009; 32(7):860-8. DOI: 10.1002/hed.21264. View

11.

Petropoulos V, Smith W, Kousvelari E . Comparison of retention and release periods for implant overdenture attachments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997; 12(2):176-85. View

12.

Tabatabaian F, Saboury A, Sobhani Z, Petropoulos V . The effect of inter-implant distance on retention and resistance to dislodging forces for mandibular implant-tissue-supported overdentures. J Dent (Tehran). 2015; 11(5):506-15. PMC: 4290769. View

13.

Rutkunas V, Mizutani H, Takahashi H . Influence of attachment wear on retention of mandibular overdenture. J Oral Rehabil. 2007; 34(1):41-51. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01640.x. View

14.

Shah F, Thomsen P, Palmquist A . Osseointegration and current interpretations of the bone-implant interface. Acta Biomater. 2018; 84:1-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.11.018. View

15.

Brown J, Shaw R . Reconstruction of the maxilla and midface: introducing a new classification. Lancet Oncol. 2010; 11(10):1001-8. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70113-3. View

16.

Alsabeeha N, Payne A, Swain M . Attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: a review of in vitro investigations on retention and wear features. Int J Prosthodont. 2010; 22(5):429-40. View

17.

Georgiopoulos B, Kalioras K, Provatidis C, Manda M, Koidis P . The effects of implant length and diameter prior to and after osseointegration: a 2-D finite element analysis. J Oral Implantol. 2007; 33(5):243-56. DOI: 10.1563/1548-1336(2007)33[243:TEOILA]2.0.CO;2. View

18.

Doukas D, Michelinakis G, Smith P, Barclay C . The influence of interimplant distance and attachment type on the retention characteristics of mandibular overdentures on 2 implants: 6-month fatigue retention values. Int J Prosthodont. 2008; 21(2):152-4. View

19.

Abdelaziz M, Fawzy A, Ghali R, Nassar H . Retention of Different Attachment Systems for Digitally Designed Mandibular Implant Overdenture. J Prosthodont. 2022; 32(2):162-169. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13516. View

20.

Lee E, Shin S . The influence of the number and the type of magnetic attachment on the retention of mandibular mini implant overdenture. J Adv Prosthodont. 2017; 9(1):14-21. PMC: 5321584. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2017.9.1.14. View