4 Volume 109 Issue 1

2. Allen PF, McKenna G, Creugers N. Prosth- 7. Ben-Ur Z, Gorfil C, Shifman A. Anterior
odontic care for elderly patients. Dent
Update 2011;38:460-2,465-6,469-70.
3. Tokuhisa M, Matsushita Y, Koyan K. In vitro
study of a mandibular implant overden-
ture retained with ball, magnet, or bar
attachment: comparison of load transfer
and denture stability. Int J Prosthodont
2003;16:128-34.
4. Bassi F. Overdenture therapy and worst-case
scenarios: Alternative management strate-
gies. Int J Prosthodont 2007;20:350-3.
5. Crum RJ, Rooney GE. Alveolar bone loss
in overdentures: a 5-year study. J Prosthet
Dent 1978;40:610-3.
6. Renner RP, Gomes BC, Shakeen ML. Four
year longitudinal study of the periodontal
health status of overdenture patients. J
Prosthet Dent 1984;51:593-8.
12.Evans BD, Koeppen GR. Bar attachment for
implant supported overdentures. Quintes-
sence Int 1996;27:603-6.
8. Basker RM, Harrison A, Ralph JP. Overden-
tures in general dental practice. Part 5--the
use of copings and attachments. Br Dent J
1983;155:9-13.
9. Zamikoff II. Overdentures--theory and tech-
nique. J Am Dent Assoc 1973;86:853-7.
10.Bassi F. Comparing overdentures therapies
with teeth and implant abutments. Int J
Prosthodont 2009;22:527-8.
11.Guttal SS, Tavargeri AK, Nadiger RK,
Thakur SL. Use of implant o-ring attach-
ment for the tooth supported mandibular
overdenture: a clinical report. Eur J Dent
2011;5:331-6.
overdentures with nonparallel abutments. J
Prosthet Dent 1992;68:6-11.
13.Rodrigues RC, Faria AC, Macedo AP,
Sartori IA, de Matros MD, Ribeiro RF. An
in vitro study of non-axial forces upon the
retention of an O-ring attachment. Clin
Oral Implants Res 2009;20:1314-9.
Corresponding author:
Dr Noéli Boscato
R. Gonçalves Chaves, 457
Pelotas, RS 96015-560
BRAZIL
Fax: +55-53-32226690
E-mail: noeliboscato@gmail.com
Copyright © 2013 by the Editorial Council for
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.

Noteworthy Abstracts of the Current Literature

Distribution of occlusal forces during occlusal adjustment of dental implant prostheses:
a nonlinear finite element analysis considering the capacity for displacement of opposing
teeth and implants.

Kasai K, Takayama Y, Yokoyama A.

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;2:329-35.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of occlusal forces (the contractile forces of the
masticatory muscles) during occlusal adjustment on the distribution of forces on combinations of implants and teeth
during intercuspal clenching by means of finite element analysis.

Materials and Methods: Three-dimensional finite element models of the mandible, one with two implants in the mo-
lar region and the other with four implants in the premolar and molar regions, were constructed. Linearly elastic mate-
rial properties were defined for all elements except the periodontal ligament, which was defined as nonlinearly elastic.
The temporomandibular joints and antagonists were simplified and replaced with nonlinear springs. Antagonists were
assumed to be a natural tooth or an implant and had two- or three-stage displaceability (ie, very high displaceability
under tension and when the displacement was smaller than the clearance assumed to be made by occlusal adjust-
ment, but displaceability of the antagonists themselves when the displacement was greater than the clearance). The
clearance by occlusal adjustment was decided beforehand with a trial-and-error method so that the occlusal forces
were distributed symmetrically under a prescribed load. Each model was evaluated under loads of 100 N, 200 N, and
800 N for the distribution of occlusal forces on the teeth and implants.

Results: In the case of occlusal adjustment under the total occlusal force of 40 N, the stress was concentrated at the
most posteriorly located implant in all models under all loading conditions. This concentration was reduced in the
case of occlusal adjustment under the total occlusal force of 200 N, except under a load of 800 N.

Conclusion: Hard biting appeared to be better for occlusal adjustment to avoid overloading of the most posterior
implant.

Reprinted with permission of Quintessence Publishing.

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Schuch et al