The mandibular complete overdenture.

David R Burns

doi:10.1016/j.cden.2004.03.002

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15261796

The mandibular complete overdenture.

David R Burns

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Mandibular complete overdenture treatment has been available for decades, but its use was limited when the treatment relied on retained teeth as overdenture abutments. This treatment, however, is currently experiencing more popularity than ever before. In fact, dentistry may be experiencing a philosophical shift, in which mandibular implant overdenture treatment may become the new standard of care for the treatment of the edentulous mandible. Practitioners are looking for simplified treatments that can provide cost-effective alternatives to more complex implant prosthodontic procedures. Implant overdentures provide a strong return for the investment in treatment time and expense and are a treatment suited to the lower socioeconomic status of many edentulous patients. The clinical outcome of this treatment is significantly better than that achieved with conventional mandibular dentures, especially when patients are experiencing technical problems because of compromised prosthesis retention or stability.

Explore related subjects

Dental Abutments Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported Denture Design Denture Retention Denture, Complete, Lower Denture, Overlay Humans Mandible Treatment Outcome Journal Article Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.Review

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

David R Burns. 2004. The mandibular complete overdenture.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2004.03.002

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Influence of attachment wear on retention of mandibular overdenture.

UNLABELLED: The aims of this study were: (i) to evaluate and compare retention of two-teeth (implant) supported mandibular overdenture with either stud or magnetic attachments during linear (axial) and rotational (paraxial) dislodgements; (ii) to compare retentive properties before and after wear simulation. The test group consisted of five magnetic and four stud overdenture attachments (n = 12 specimens for each attachment type). Retention in axial direction was evaluated on one-tooth (implant) model by measuring maximum retentive force (N) and range of retention (mm) during the linear dislodgement. Retention in the paraxial direction was evaluated on mandibular-overdenture model by measuring the maximum retentive force (N) during three types of rotational dislodgements - anterior, lateral and posterior. The minimum number of cycles required to simulate wear was determined by special wear test. Afterwards, the wear was simulated in the test group, and retention in axial and paraxial directions was measured again. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: one-way anova, Scheffe post hoc and paired-samples t-tests (P < 0.05). Initially, studs had higher retention (4-11 N) than magnets (4.5-6 N) in axial direction. After the wear simulation, it had decreased from 76% to 48% for some of the studs and had become similar to the retention of magnetic attachments. Magnets had lower retention range (0.2-0.3 mm) than studs (0.5-1.1 mm). Studs provided similar or higher retention in paraxial directions than magnetic attachments both before and after wear simulation. Retentive properties of magnets decreased mostly with posterior rotational dislodgement. Retentive properties of stud overdenture attachments were less constant.

Dental Abutments↗

PubMed2006

Transitioning patients from teeth to implants.

One major obstacle to treatment with implants is the transitional phase between a tooth supported occlusion and an implant supported occlusion. This is of particular concern when a patient with a failing dentition has not worn a removable prosthesis before and is planning to have a reconstruction supported by implants.

Dental Abutments↗

PubMed2006

Impression techniques for implant dentistry.

The object of making an impression in implant dentistry is to accurately relate an analogue of the implant or implant abutment to the other structures in the dental arch. This is affected by use of an impression coping which is attached to the implant or implant abutment. This impression coping is incorporated in an impression - much as a metal framework is 'picked up' in a remount impression for fixed prosthodontics. With implant copings the coping is usually attached to the implant or abutment with screws. The impression material used is usually an elastomeric impression material; the two types most widely used and shown to be the most appropriate are polyether and polyvinyl siloxane impression materials.

Dental Abutments↗