Brought to you by

Continuing Education

Full Arch Implant Prostheses: Part I -

Diagnosis and Treatment Planning

Course Author(s): Swati Ahuja, BDS, MDS

CE Credits: 1 hour
Intended Audience: Dentists, Dental Students
Date Course Online: 02/25/2021
Last Revision Date: N/A
Course Expiration Date: 02/24/2024
Cost: Free
Method: Self-instructional
AGD Subject Code(s): 690

Online Course: www.dentalcare.com/en-us/professional-education/ce-courses/ce612

Disclaimers:
• P&G is providing these resource materials to dental professionals. We do not own this content nor are we responsible for any material herein.
• Participants must always be aware of the hazards of using limited knowledge in integrating new techniques or procedures into their practice.
Only sound evidence-based dentistry should be used in patient therapy.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statement

• Dr. Ahuja reports no conflicts of interest associated with this course, nor does she have any
relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Introduction – Full Arch Implant Prostheses

The introduction of implant-supported prostheses has improved the quality of life of the
edentulous population. The choice of the prostheses and the attachments should be based on
various factors and not the preferences of the dentist or the patient. The success of an implant
prosthesis relies on proper planning and placement of implants. Prosthetically driven implant
planning ensures optimal placement of implants.

Please note: This is Part I of a two-part series. Full Arch Implant Prostheses: Part II - Fabrication
Procedures will describe all the procedural steps for fabricating a predictable implant-supported
removable dental prosthesis and an all-on-4/all-on-5 implant-supported fixed prosthesis. Each of
the two courses can be taken independently and in any order.

1
Crest® + Oral-B® at dentalcare.com
Course Contents • Learn to plan restoratively driven implants
• Overview and understand the small but important
• Learning Objectives differences in implant placement for
• Introduction removable and fixed prostheses.
• Mode of Retention of Removable Implant
Prosthesis Introduction
• Bar Attachments
• Individual Stud Attachments
• Selection of the Optimal Attachment Definition
System for Implant Overdentures Implant prosthesis is a prosthesis
• Mode of Retention of Fixed Implant supported and retained in part or whole by
Prosthesis dental implants.
• Diagnosis and Treatment Planning for
Implant Prostheses
• Summary Edentulism is considered a major health
• Course Test problem as it affects the overall well-being of
• References / Additional Resources an individual.1-3 Traditionally, complete dentures
• About the Author were the only treatment option available for
edentulous patients.4 The lack of prosthesis
Overview retention and stability coupled with poor
Implants have helped improve the denture masticatory efficiency led to dissatisfaction
bearing foundation and quality of life of among denture patients, forcing them to seek
edentulous patients. Treatment options alternative therapy.5,6 The advent of implants and
available for edentulous patients are complete implant prostheses have positively impacted the
dentures, implant-supported overdentures, quality of life of many edentulous patients.6-10
and implant-supported fixed restorations. This
course describes the factors governing the An implant-supported and/or retained prosthesis
choice of implant prostheses and attachments/ can be fixed or removable. However, most
abutments for both removable and fixed dentists and patients believe that the most
implant restorations. It also details the entire suitable restoration (that will eliminate all of
treatment planning sequence starting with the patient’s existing problems) is a “fixed”
the treatment prosthesis, progressing to implant prosthesis.11-13 The choice of the
CBCT assisted implant planning, and finally definitive prosthesis should not be based on the
placement of implants with 3D surgical guides. preference of the dentist or the patient, rather,
it should be determined by comprehensive
Learning Objectives diagnosis and treatment planning.13 The bone
Upon completion of this course, the dental quantity and quality, the number, location and
professional should be able to: distribution of implants, the available restorative
• Understand the indications, space, smile line, lip length, opposing arch,
contraindications, advantages and oral hygiene compliance, financial implications,
disadvantages of implant-supported fixed and the time required for fabrication and
and removable prostheses. maintenance of the prosthesis should be taken
• Choose optimal prostheses for the patient into consideration while choosing the type of
based on all relevant factors. implant prosthesis.11,12,14 Removable implant
• Choose the most appropriate attachment prosthesis can be indicated in most situations
system for the patient based on all the which may be inconducive to the fabrication of
relevant factors including restorative space. fixed implant prosthesis.13,15,16
• Understand the entire workflow beginning
with implant planning to implant placement Removable implant restorations (Implant
based on both the anatomic and prosthetic overdentures) may be either implant-retained
determinants using CBCT, implant planning and mucosa-supported or implant-retained
software, and 3D surgical guides. and implant-supported. When the prosthesis

2
Crest® + Oral-B® at dentalcare.com
is retained by implants and supported by can also be interpreted as advantages of fixed
mucosal tissues, it is termed as an implant- implant prosthesis) they include the following:
retained and mucosa-supported prosthesis.
When the prosthesis is retained and supported 1. All removable restorations must be kept out
by implants, it is an implant-retained and of the mouth for 6 to 8 hours in a 24-hour
implant-supported prosthesis. Implant period which may be objectionable to some
overdentures have several advantages of the patients.27
compared to conventional complete dentures 2. Removable implant prostheses generally
and removable partial dentures, including require more restorative space than fixed
decreased bone resorption (in locations where implant restorations.28
implants are placed),17 reduced prosthesis
movement, improved mastication, nutrition,18,19 Note: Restorative space is the 3-dimensional
appearance20 (teeth placement can be dictated oral space available (specific to the arch
by esthetics), satisfaction21 and quality of under consideration) to receive the
life22 and maintenance of the occlusal vertical proposed prosthodontics restoration.29
dimension (OVD). When compared to fixed Vertical restorative space may be assessed
implant prostheses, implant overdentures have using measuring tools, such as a Boley
the following advantages: (These can be also be gauge and existing complete dentures,
interpreted as disadvantages of fixed implant wax rims (Figure 1A), or wax trial dentures.
prostheses.) The tips of the measuring caliper should
simultaneously contact the intaglio surface
1. Fewer implants needed: Fabrication of of the denture or record base and the
implant-supported overdentures generally deepest aspect of the overlying occlusal
requires a lesser number of implants surface or the wax rim.29 Vertical space may
compared to fixed implant prostheses. also be directly calculated using mounted
2. Improvement of esthetics: Patients with casts with adjusted wax rims (Figure 1B)
significant resorption of the labial aspect of or wax trial dentures.29 Also, computed
the anterior maxilla require lip support to tomography (CT) scans with computer-based
optimize the esthetics. The labial flange of planning can also be used to determine the
the overdenture can be contoured to provide available restorative space.
the desired lip support.20,23 Managing this
situation with a fixed implant prosthesis The minimum vertical space requirement of
would necessitate bone augmentation various implant prostheses are as follows:28-30
procedures or the development of non- • Fixed screw-retained (implant level)
cleansable contours in the fixed restoration. prosthesis (porcelain fused to metal/
3. Improvement in speech: The overdenture Zirconia): 4-5 millimeters;
surfaces can be appropriately contoured • Fixed screw-retained (abutment level)
and the prosthetic teeth can be optimally prosthesis (porcelain fused to metal/
positioned to permit an improvement in Zirconia): 7.5mm;
speech. Also, the problem of air leakage • Fixed cement-retained prosthesis
between the prosthesis and the ridges is (porcelain fused to metal/Zirconia):
minimized with an overdenture.20,24,25 7-8mm;
4. Easy to clean: The oral cavity, attachments • Fixed screw-retained complete denture
and the prosthesis are easy to clean because (acrylic and metal): 15mm;*
the prosthesis can be easily removed from • Overdenture supported by locator
the mouth.20,26 attachments: 8.5mm;
5. Cost-effective: Removable implant • Overdenture supported by bar attachment
restorations are less expensive to fabricate system:13-14mm
and repair than fixed implant restorations.
*All the different types of fixed implant
However, there are a few disadvantages prostheses require lesser vertical
associated with implant overdentures (which restorative space compared to the

3
Crest® + Oral-B® at dentalcare.com
Figure 1A. Evaluation of restorative space using the Figure 1B. Evaluation of restorative space using wax
wax rim and Boley gauge. rims on mounted casts.

removable implant prostheses except the Hader Bar (keyhole shape).31 Bars may be
fixed screw-retained complete denture. casted, milled, or fabricated by CAD-CAM
3. There is a need for constant replacement (computer-aided designing/computer-aided
of the retentive elements of the stud manufacturing) technology.31 Fabrication of
attachments when used in situations where a prosthesis supported by a bar attachment
the implants are not placed parallel to each requires substantial planning and is technique
other.27 sensitive.28,31-35 Bars require more vertical
4. Since fewer implants are placed, the restorative space (minimum 13‑14mm)
osseous structures will continue to resorb in compared to individual stud attachments.36
locations where there are no implants.27 Patients with bar-supported prostheses
may develop mucosal hyperplasia beneath
All these factors should be taken into the bar and mucositis around the implants
consideration while choosing the type of when optimal oral hygiene is not maintained
implant prosthesis. (Figure 2B).31 Individual stud attachments are
preferred attachments (due to reduced tissue
Mode of Retention of Removable coverage) for patients with poor oral hygiene
Implant Prosthesis (Figure 3).37
Implant overdentures may be retained
using bar and clip attachment systems and/ Individual Stud Attachments
or individual, free-standing abutment-based With the advent of the locator attachment
attachments. Freestanding attachments include system, there has been a decrease in the use
balls, magnets, resilient stud attachments, such of magnets, ball attachments, and the ERA
as the Locator system (Zest Dental Solutions), attachment system. Features such as resiliency,
Locator R-Tx system (Zest Dental Solutions) self-alignment38-40 (making it easy for the patient
and ERA (Sterngold), and non-resilient stud to align and seat the prosthesis), dual retention
attachments such as Ankylos Syncone (Dentsply (internal and external),38-40 ease of replacement
International).31 of the nylon retentive inserts41,42 and
maintenance of oral hygiene,43 lowest vertical
Bar Attachments profile40 (3.17mm for external hexagon implant,
Bars are usually planned to accommodate 2.5mm for internal connection) (Figure 4), high
non-parallel implant trajectories.31 Bars success rate44 and superior clinical performance
provide excellent stabilization, retention, (compared to ball and bar attachments)40
and force distribution (due to splinting have made the locator attachments very
effect) (Figure 2A). There are various designs popular among the restorative dentists. The
of bars such as Ackermann Bar (spherical locator attachment system has become the
shape), Dolder Bar (ovoid or “U” shape), and attachment of choice when there is reduced

4
Crest® + Oral-B® at dentalcare.com
Figure 2A. Hader Bar fabricated with ERA extensions Figure 2B. Mucosal hyperplasia and mucositis in a
to support an overdenture. bar-supported prosthesis due to poor oral hygiene.
Picture courtesy of Dr. Cagna

Figure 3. Easier accessibility for oral hygiene maintenance with

individual stud attachments.

Figure 4. Comparison of vertical dimensions of the locator (left), mini ERA (center), and
the ERA (right) attachment system.
Picture courtesy of Dr. Cagna

5
Crest® + Oral-B® at dentalcare.com
 Figure 5. Locator R-Tx attachment system.
Picture courtesy of Dr. Massad

vertical restorative space.28 However, all 1. Trajectory and position of implants:

stud attachments (Locator included) incur a Individual attachments (Locators, ERA, Ball,
significant reduction in retention when used and Magnets) are often indicated when
in association with converging/diverging implants are planned/placed parallel to each
implants.45-47 The extended range (Gray, red, other.50 When implants have non-parallel
orange, or green) locator inserts to correct up trajectories, a bar attachment, Syncone,
to 20° angulation per implant (40° between two or the R-Tx attachment system should be
implants) have been recommended for non- selected. Bar attachments are also preferred
parallel implants. However, the extended range when implants cannot be placed in ideal
inserts only provide external retention and also locations due to interference with anatomic
wear faster than the standard range.48,49 structures, such as the presence of mental
foramen or ridge crest seen in patients with
Recently introduced Locator R-Tx removable severely resorbed ridges.51-53
attachment system (attachment system for 2. Desire for cross arch stabilization: The
removable implant-supported prostheses) inherent design of the bar attachment
(Figure 5) eliminates the limitations associated system provides cross arch stabilization.54,55
with conventional locator attachment.49 It 3. Decrease in Prosthesis size: When patients
permits a 50% increase in pivoting capability require a minimum size of the definitive
and up to 30° angle correction per implant as prosthesis, specifically designed milled bars
opposed to a maximum of 20° angle correction can be utilized to accomplish the same.56
per implant with the conventional locator 4. Frequent occurrence of sore spots: Bar
attachment system.49 In addition to its angle attachments are commonly indicated in
correction capability, several new features patients who are xerostomic and/or prone
have been incorporated to improve its clinical to soft-tissue sore spots as the denture
performance.49 The success of a removable can be entirely bar supported, thereby
implant restoration primarily depends on the minimizing impingement on denture
retentive capacity of its attachment to perform bearing tissues.57
optimally over an extended period of time. 5. Poor oral hygiene: Patients who are
incapable of maintaining optimal oral
Selection of the Optimal Attachment System hygiene or patients who will not dedicate
for Implant Overdentures appropriate time for maintenance of oral
Attachment system selection depends on a hygiene should be cautioned and, at times,
variety of factors that must be identified early denied placement of bar attachments until
in the treatment sequence. These factors they commit to an appropriate oral hygiene
include: regimen.43

6
Crest® + Oral-B® at dentalcare.com
6. Restorative space: Minimum restorative in case of complications. Screw loosening,
space required for implant-supported the requirement of sectioning and soldering
overdentures with locator attachments is procedures, increased costs, greater complexity
8.5mm vertically.29 Implant overdentures of components and laboratory procedures,
supported by bar attachments require a increased chairside time, and compromised
minimum of 12 to 14mm of vertical space.36 esthetics, occlusion and porcelain strength
7. Ease of fabrication/repair: Removable are the major disadvantages associated with
restorations supported by a bar are more screw-retained prostheses.58-61 It is also difficult
challenging to fabricate and repair than to place a screw-retained restoration in a
removable restorations supported with patient’s mouth with a limited oral opening as
individual stud attachments.31,33,35 it may be challenging to insert the screwdriver
8. Opposing arch: It is necessary to identify in the oral cavity.62
the opposing arch in the treatment
planning process. If a complete denture is Cement-retained implant prostheses (Figure 7)
planned for the maxillary arch; it would be offer superior stability,63 occlusion, esthetics,
advised to treatment plan the mandibular stronger implant prosthetic connection,
implant overdenture with individual and improved force transmission compared
stud attachments as opposed to a bar to screw-retained implant prostheses.58,59
attachment system to avoid excessive forces Extrusion of the excess cement into the peri-
on the maxillary denture.37 implant sulcus (which may be difficult to
9. Economics: The cost of fabrication of recognize and remove) is one of the major
the bar attachments in contrast to stud drawbacks of a cement-retained prosthesis.58,64
abutments will be much higher in most Several techniques have been reported that aid
instances.11,53 However, treatment options in preventing/decreasing the flow of cement
should never solely be based on finances. into the subgingival sulcus.64-67

Mode of Retention of Fixed Implant The Locator F-Tx attachment system

Prosthesis (attachment system for fixed implant-
Fixed dental implant-supported prostheses supported prostheses) (Figure 8) has been
may be either cement-retained or screw- recently introduced by Zest Dental Solutions as
retained. Screw-retained prostheses (Figure 6) a solution to the disadvantages of both screw
are retrievable and require lesser vertical and cement retention.68 F-Tx system eliminates
restorative space compared to cement- the use of screw access holes, cement, and
retained prostheses.58,59 Retrievability enables several difficult intraoral procedures.23,68 Unique
better hygiene maintenance of the prosthesis, spherical abutment geometry allows denture
the implants, and the surrounding mucosa60 attachment housings (DAHs) of the F-Tx system
and easier management of the restorations to pivot in any direction (angle correction) up

Figure 6. Screw-retained prosthesis.

7
Crest® + Oral-B® at dentalcare.com
Figure 7. Cement-retained prosthesis.
Picture courtesy of Dr. Wicks

Figure 8. Locator F-Tx attachment system.

Picture courtesy of Dr. Massad

to 20 degrees. The F-Tx Denture Attachment Diagnosis and Treatment Planning for
Housings (DAHs) are picked up in the Implant Prostheses
prosthesis via a chairside pick-up procedure Treatment Prosthesis
similar to that used for the conventional Prior to planning implant restorations, it is
locator attachment system.68 critical to assess the medical and dental history
and ensure that there are no contraindications
Fixation by revolutionary “snap-in” feature; to the placement of dental implants. For any
angulation correction up to 20°from the implant restoration to be successful, it is critical
vertical; stress-free passive fit; decreased to plan and place implants accurately.69,70 Ideally
requirement of vertical restorative space a treatment prosthesis should be fabricated for
(9-12mm); improved esthetics; and higher every patient. This prosthesis helps the dentist
patient comfort and satisfaction are the listed gauge the restorative space (Figure 9), the
advantages of the F-Tx attachment system.68 lip support, phonetics, OVD, the relationship
The F-Tx attachment is contraindicated for between the edentulous ridge and the
single-tooth restorations, unilateral partial fixed intended position of the prosthetic teeth, the
implant prostheses, implants with divergence intended design of the definitive restoration,
greater than 20° or where a resilient esthetics and expectations of the patient. The
connection is required.68 restorative dentist should decide the type and

8
Crest® + Oral-B® at dentalcare.com
 Figure 9. Boley gauge used to evaluate the vertical restorative
space at the location of the right first premolar.

Figure 10. Fiduciary markers incorporated in the treatment prosthesis.

the design of the prosthesis before implant guide itself. Using the implant planning
placement. If the patient is satisfied with the software, the raw data is converted into
treatment prosthesis, it can be converted DICOM (Digital Imaging and Communications
into a radiographic guide (by adding fiduciary in Medicine) data and the data from the two
markers or painting radiopaque ink) (Figure 10) scans is combined into one to treatment
and used to plan implant positions and plan the implants in relation to the bone
angulations based on the intended position of and prosthesis. This has helped change the
the prosthetic teeth.70 osseous-driven approach to a combination of
osseous- and prosthetic-driven approach for
CBCT Assisted Implant Planning implant placement.70-73
It is beneficial to plan implants using the data
generated from 3-dimensional (3-D) Cone The planning and placement of the implants
beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and should vary depending on the design of
guided implant planning software.70-72 Usually the prosthesis. For an implant-supported
two CBCT scans are made (Dual scan protocol). removable restoration, the long axis of the
The first scan is made of the patient with the implants should emerge from the lingual
radiographic guide placed in the oral cavity, aspect of the prosthetic teeth since it is the
and the other scan is made of the radiographic bulkiest part of the prosthesis. For a fixed

9
Crest® + Oral-B® at dentalcare.com
implant restoration, the implants should
emerge (the long axis of the implant) through
the center of the prosthetic teeth. Implants
should be planned such that they are parallel
to each other and perpendicular to the occlusal
plane (Figure 11).

The anteroposterior (A-P) spread is the

mesiodistal distance between the posterior
edges of the distal implants and the midpoint
of the most anterior implant in an arch.74,75 An
A-P spread that minimizes the distal cantilevers
and establishes stability may contribute to
implant and prosthesis success.74,75 Hence, it
is recommended to maximize the A-P spread
of implants.74,75 When adequate A-P spread
of the implants cannot be achieved (due Figure 11. Implants planned parallel to
to inadequate bone) implants can be tilted each other.
posteriorly to optimize the A-P spread. Multi-
unit angle correction abutments can be used to
correct the angulation of the tilted implants.

A minimum of 4 and 6 implants are required

for a maxillary removable and a fixed implant
prosthesis, respectively. A minimum of 1 (or 2)
and 4 implants (with a good anteroposterior
spread) are required for mandibular removable
and fixed implant prosthesis, respectively.
Incorporating additional implant/s than the
bare minimum requirement is advantageous
as it aids in providing extra support and also
prevents the need for a subsequent surgical
procedure if an implant is lost.

Another factor that must be evaluated during

implant planning is the available vertical
restorative space.28,29 Vertical restorative
space can be calculated on the CBCT scan
by measuring the distance between the
platform of the planned implant and the Figure 12. Vertical restorative space
occlusal surface of the prosthetic tooth calculated on the CBCT cross-sectional
(Figure 12).29 Fabrication of a prosthesis in image.
the presence of inadequate restorative space
may lead to physiologically inappropriate in OVD, occlusal plane repositioning, and
contours, structurally weak prostheses, management of attachment selection.28 These
esthetic compromise, encroachment into procedures should be implemented prior to
freeway space, and/or suboptimal retention implant placement when treatment options are
and stability of the treatment result.28,29 When being considered.28
the restorative space is inadequate, clinical
procedures may be implemented to improve Surgical Guide and Guided Surgery
vertical space availability. These procedures Anchor pins may be planned to help stabilize
include alveoloplasty, intentional increase the surgical guide during the osteotomy

10
Crest® + Oral-B® at dentalcare.com
 Figure 14. Implants placed through the 3D
surgical guide.
Figure 13. 3D surgical guide.

procedures. Combining the CAD/CAM Note: The implant placement through the
technique, digital implant planning can be guide is exactly as planned in the software.
applied to clinical practice using 3-D surgical It is so accurate that a cast may be retro
guides.71-73 Once the plan has been approved engineered using the surgical guide and a
the CAD (computer-assisted design) files may transitional restoration can be fabricated on
be sent to the 3D surgical guide manufacturer the cast prior to the placement of implants. If
for the fabrication of the 3D surgical guide a transitional fixed restoration (pre-fabricated
(Figure 13). by the laboratory) is planned, the prosthesis
is adjusted, the temporary abutment cylinders
The surgical guide should be tried in the mouth are picked up clinically, the prosthesis is
and adjusted to ensure that it completely finished and polished, screws are tightened
seats in the mouth. The osteotomy, as well and screw access holes are plugged with Teflon
as implant placement, can be accomplished tape and sealed with composite resin.
through the 3D guide following the
manufacturers’ recommended protocol Summary
(Figure 14). The surgical guide directs the Comprehensive diagnosis and thorough
osteotomies and placement of implants in the treatment planning are prerequisites to
X, Y, and Z-axis. Following implant placement, achieving successful implant rehabilitation.
cover screws (requires second-stage surgery) Information gathered during diagnosis can
or healing abutments may be attached to the seamlessly influence surgical decision making,
implants. At this time, the treatment denture implant placement, choice of prosthesis and
may be adjusted as needed and then relined attachments, and the design of a definitive
with a soft lining material. prosthesis.

11
Crest® + Oral-B® at dentalcare.com
Course Test Preview
To receive Continuing Education credit for this course, you must complete the online test. Please
go to: www.dentalcare.com/en-us/professional-education/ce-courses/ce612/test

1. Selection of the attachment system for implant overdentures should be based on all of
the following factors EXCEPT one. Which one is this exception?
A. Oral hygiene
B. Retrievability
C. Desire for cross arch stabilization
D. Trajectory and position of implants

2. All of the following are advantages of cement-retained fixed implant prosthesis EXCEPT
one. Which one is this exception?
A. Esthetics
B. Ease of repair
C. Stability
D. Occlusion

3. Which attachment system has the lowest vertical profile?

A. Locator
B. Ball
C. Mini ERA
D. Magnets

4. The F-Tx and the R-Tx locator attachment system can be used for retaining and
supporting implant overdentures. The technique of incorporating the locator F-Tx
denture attachment housing in a prosthesis is similar to that used for the conventional
locator.
A. Both the statements are true.
B. Both the statements are false.
C. The first statement is true. The second statement is false.
D. The first statement is false. The second statement is true.

5. Surgical guides can direct placement of implants in x, y and x axis.

A. True
B. False

6. If a complete denture is planned for the maxillary arch which of the following prosthesis
would be the optimal choice for the mandibular arch in a patient with Class III jaw
relationship?
A. Fixed cement retained all ceramic implant prosthesis
B. Fixed screw retained porcelain fused to metal implant prosthesis
C. Implant over denture supported with stud attachments
D. Implant overdenture supported by a bar

7. Which of the following CANNOT be used to correct the implant angulation?

A. Multi-unit abutment
B. Locator F-Tx
C. Locator R-Tx
D. Stock abutment

12
Crest® + Oral-B® at dentalcare.com
8. Full arch implant supported fixed restorations may be retained by all of the following
EXCEPT one. Which one is this exception?
A. Cement
B. Locator F-Tx
C. Locator
D. Screw

9. When the restorative space is inadequate clinical procedures may be implemented to

improve vertical space availability. These procedures include all of the following EXCEPT
one. Which one is this exception?
A. Alveoloplasty
B. Intentional increase in occlusal vertical dimension
C. Intentional increase in rest vertical dimension
D. Occlusal plane repositioning

10. Design of the prosthesis should be determined after the placement and healing of
implants. Removable implant prostheses generally require more restorative space than
fixed implant restorations.
A. Both the statements are true.
B. Both the statements are false.
C. The first statement is true. The second statement is false.
D. The first statement is false. The second statement is true.

11. Bars are usually planned to accommodate parallel implant trajectories. Bars provide
excellent stabilization, retention and force distribution.
A. Both the statements are true.
B. Both the statements are false.
C. The first statement is true. The second statement is false.
D. The first statement is false. The second statement is true.

13
Crest® + Oral-B® at dentalcare.com
References
1. Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence,
prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188
countries, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet.
2015 Aug 22;386(9995):743-800. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60692-4. Epub 2015 Jun 7.
2. Nordenram G, Davidson T, Gynther G, et al. Qualitative studies of patients’ perceptions of loss
of teeth, the edentulous state and prosthetic rehabilitation: a systematic review with meta-
synthesis. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013 May-Jul;71(3-4):937-51. doi: 10.3109/00016357.2012.734421.
Epub 2012 Oct 29.
3. Peltzer K, Hewlett S, Yawson AE, et al. Prevalence of loss of all teeth (edentulism) and associated
factors in older adults in China, Ghana, India, Mexico, Russia and South Africa. Int J Environ Res
Public Health. 2014 Oct 30;11(11):11308-24. doi: 10.3390/ijerph111111308.
4. Lee DJ, Saponaro PC. Management of Edentulous Patients. Dent Clin North Am. 2019
Apr;63(2):249-261. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2018.11.006. Epub 2019 Jan 30.
5. Prithviraj DR, Madan V, Harshamayi P, Kumar CG, Vashisht R. A comparison of masticatory
efficiency in conventional dentures, implant retained or supported overdentures and implant
supported fixed prostheses: A literature review. J Dent Implant 2014;4:153-7. doi: 10.4103/0974-
6781.140882. Accessed February 22, 2021.
6. Sharka R, Abed H, Hector M. Oral health-related quality of life and satisfaction of edentulous
patients using conventional complete dentures and implant-retained overdentures: An umbrella
systematic review. Gerodontology. 2019 Sep;36(3):195-204. doi: 10.1111/ger.12399. Epub 2019
Mar 15.
7. Sargozaie N, Moeintaghavi A, Shojaie H. Comparing the Quality of Life of Patients Requesting
Dental Implants Before and After Implant. Open Dent J. 2017 Aug 31;11:485-491. doi:
10.2174/1874210601711010485.
8. Zhang L, Lyu C, Shang Z, Niu A, Liang X. Quality of Life of Implant-Supported Overdenture and
Conventional Complete Denture in Restoring the Edentulous Mandible: A Systematic Review.
Implant Dent. 2017 Dec;26(6):945-950. doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000668.
9. Miranda SB, Possebon APDR, Schuster AJ, Marcello-Machado RM, de Rezende Pinto L, Faot F.
Relationship Between Masticatory Function Impairment and Oral Health-Related Quality of
Life of Edentulous Patients: An Interventional Study. J Prosthodont. 2019 Jul;28(6):634-642. doi:
10.1111/jopr.13070. Epub 2019 May 22.
10. Boven GC, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Meijer HJ. Improving masticatory performance, bite force,
nutritional state and patient’s satisfaction with implant overdentures: a systematic review of the
literature. J Oral Rehabil. 2015 Mar;42(3):220-33. doi: 10.1111/joor.12241. Epub 2014 Oct 13.
11. Sadowsky SJ. The implant-supported prosthesis for the edentulous arch: design considerations. J
Prosthet Dent. 1997 Jul;78(1):28-33. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(97)70084-2.
12. DeBoer J. Edentulous implants: overdenture versus fixed. J Prosthet Dent. 1993 Apr;69(4):386-90.
doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(93)90186-r.
13. 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 Aug;82(2):188-96. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(99)70155-1.
14. Stanford CM. Academy of Osseointegration’s Summit on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the
Edentulous Maxilla: Overview, Process, and Outcomes-Changing the Face of Implant Dentistry.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31 Suppl:s6-s15. doi: 10.11607/jomi.16suppl.ovw.
15. Zitzmann NU, Marinello CP. Implant-supported removable overdentures in the edentulous
maxilla: clinical and technical aspects. Int J Prosthodont. 1999 Sep-Oct;12(5):385-90.
16. Zitzmann NU, Marinello CP. Treatment outcomes of fixed or removable implant-supported
prostheses in the edentulous maxilla. Part I: patients’ assessments. J Prosthet Dent. 2000
Apr;83(4):424-33. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(00)70037-0.
17. Wright PS, Glantz PO, Randow K, Watson RM. The effects of fixed and removable implant-
stabilised prostheses on posterior mandibular residual ridge resorption. Clin Oral Implants Res.
2002 Apr;13(2):169-74. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130207.x.

14
Crest® + Oral-B® at dentalcare.com
18. Benzing U, Weber H, Simonis A, Engel E. Changes in chewing patterns after implantation in the
edentulous mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1994 Mar-Apr;9(2):207-13.
19. Morais JA, Heydecke G, Pawliuk J, Lund JP, Feine JS. The effects of mandibular two-implant
overdentures on nutrition in elderly edentulous individuals. J Dent Res. 2003 Jan;82(1):53-8. doi:
10.1177/154405910308200112.
20. Heydecke G, Boudrias P, Awad MA, De Albuquerque RF, Lund JP, Feine JS. Within-subject
comparisons of maxillary fixed and removable implant prostheses: Patient satisfaction and
choice of prosthesis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003 Feb;14(1):125-30. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-
0501.2003.140117.x.
21. Thomason JM, Lund JP, Chehade A, Feine JS. Patient satisfaction with mandibular implant
overdentures and conventional dentures 6 months after delivery. Int J Prosthodont. 2003 Sep-
Oct;16(5):467-73.
22. Awad MA, Lund JP, Shapiro SH, Locker D, Klemetti E, Chehade A, Savard A, Feine JS. Oral health
status and treatment satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional
dentures: a randomized clinical trial in a senior population. Int J Prosthodont. 2003 Jul-
Aug;16(4):390-6.
23. Brennan M, Houston F, O’Sullivan M, O’Connell B. Patient satisfaction and oral health-related
quality of life outcomes of implant overdentures and fixed complete dentures. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants. 2010 Jul-Aug;25(4):791-800.
24. Heydecke G, McFarland DH, Feine JS, Lund JP. Speech with maxillary implant prostheses: ratings
of articulation. J Dent Res. 2004 Mar;83(3):236-40. doi: 10.1177/154405910408300310.
25. Lundqvist S, Lohmander-Agerskov A, Haraldson T. Speech before and after treatment with
bridges on osseointegrated implants in the edentulous upper jaw. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1992
Jun;3(2):57-62. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030202.x.
26. Feine JS, de Grandmont P, Boudrias P, Brien N, LaMarche C, Taché R, Lund JP. Within-subject
comparisons of implant-supported mandibular prostheses: choice of prosthesis. J Dent Res.
1994 May;73(5):1105-11. doi: 10.1177/00220345940730051301.
27. Misch CE. Dental implant prosthetics, 2nd ed. St. Louis, MO. Elsevier Mosby; 2015.
28. Ahuja S, Cagna DR. Classification and management of restorative space in edentulous
implant overdenture patients. J Prosthet Dent. 2011 May;105(5):332-7. doi: 10.1016/S0022-
3913(11)60064-4.
29. Ahuja S, Cagna DR. Defining available restorative space for implant overdentures. J Prosthet
Dent. 2010 Aug;104(2):133-6. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60107-2.
30. Carpentieri J, Greenstein G, Cavallaro J. Hierarchy of restorative space required for different
types of dental implant prostheses. J Am Dent Assoc. 2019 Aug;150(8):695-706. doi: 10.1016/j.
adaj.2019.04.015.
31. Martínez-Lage-Azorín JF, Segura-Andrés G, Faus-López J, Agustín-Panadero R. Rehabilitation with
implant-supported overdentures in total edentulous patients: A review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2013
Dec 1;5(5):e267-72. doi: 10.4317/jced.50817.
32. Gotfredsen K, Holm B. Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or
bar attachments: a randomized prospective 5-year study. Int J Prosthodont. 2000 Mar-
Apr;13(2):125-30.
33. Behr M, Lang R, Leibrock A, Rosentritt M, Handel G. Complication rate with prosthodontic
reconstructions on ITI and IMZ dental implants. Internationales Team für Implantologie. Clin
Oral Implants Res. 1998 Feb;9(1):51-8. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1998.090107.x.
34. Mericske-Stern RD, Taylor TD, Belser U. Management of the edentulous patient. Clin Oral
Implants Res. 2000;11 Suppl 1:108-25. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011s1108.x.
35. Payne AG, Solomons YF. The prosthodontic maintenance requirements of mandibular mucosa-
and implant-supported overdentures: a review of the literature. Int J Prosthodont. 2000 May-
Jun;13(3):238-43.
36. Sadowsky SJ. Treatment considerations for maxillary implant overdentures: a systematic review.
J Prosthet Dent. 2007 Jun;97(6):340-8. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60022-5.

15
Crest® + Oral-B® at dentalcare.com
37. Massad JJ, Ahuja S, Cagna D. Implant overdentures: selections for attachment systems. Dent
Today. 2013 Feb;32(2):128, 130-2.
38. Evtimovska E, Masri R, Driscoll CF, Romberg E. The change in retentive values of locator
attachments and hader clips over time. J Prosthodont. 2009 Aug;18(6):479-83. doi:
10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00474.x. Epub 2009 Jun 3.
39. Büttel AE, Bühler NM, Marinello CP. Locator oder Kugelanker? Eine Hilfe für die klinische
Entscheidungsfindung [Locator or ball attachment: a guide for clinical decision making]. Schweiz
Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2009;119(9):901-18. French, German.
40. Cakarer S, Can T, Yaltirik M, Keskin C. Complications associated with the ball, bar and Locator
attachments for implant-supported overdentures. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2011 Nov
1;16(7):e953-9. doi: 10.4317/medoral.17312.
41. Chikunov I, Doan P, Vahidi F. Implant-retained partial overdenture with resilient attachments. J
Prosthodont. 2008 Feb;17(2):141-148. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00261.x. Epub 2007 Nov 15.
42. Kleis WK, Kämmerer PW, Hartmann S, et al. A comparison of three different attachment systems
for mandibular two-implant overdentures: one-year report. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010
Sep;12(3):209-18. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00154.x. Epub 2009 Mar 31.
43. Ahuja S, Wicks R, Selecman A. Fabrication of new restorations with a consideration of oral
hygiene. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2016 Jul-Sep;16(3):307-10. doi: 10.4103/0972-4052.158084.
44. Seo YH, Bae EB, Kim JW, et al. Clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures via Locator
implant attachment and Locator bar attachment. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016 Aug;8(4):313-20. doi:
10.4047/jap.2016.8.4.313. Epub 2016 Aug 18.
45. Elsyad MA, Abid KS, Elkhalek EA. Effect of Buccal Implant Inclination on Stresses Around Two-
Implant-Retained Overdentures with Resilient Stud Attachments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.
2017 May/June;32(3):e135–e142. doi: 10.11607/jomi.5427. Epub 2017 Apr 12.
46. Aroso C, Silva AS, Ustrell R, et al. Effect of abutment angulation in the retention and durability of
three overdenture attachment systems: An in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016 Feb;8(1):21-9.
doi: 10.4047/jap.2016.8.1.21. Epub 2016 Feb 23.
47. Uludag B, Polat S, Sahin V, Çomut AA. Effects of implant angulations and attachment
configurations on the retentive forces of locator attachment-retained overdentures. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Sep-Oct;29(5):1053-7. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3401.
48. Evtimovska E, Masri R, Driscoll CF, Romberg E. The change in retentive values of locator
attachments and hader clips over time. J Prosthodont. 2009 Aug;18(6):479-83. doi:
10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00474.x. Epub 2009 Jun 3.
49. Zest Dental Solutions. Accessed February 22, 2021.
50. Chung KH, Chung CY, Cagna DR, Cronin RJ Jr. Retention characteristics of attachment
systems for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont. 2004 Dec;13(4):221-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-
849X.2004.04042.x.
51. Asvanund C, Morgano SM. Restoration of unfavorably positioned implants for a partially
endentulous patient by using an overdenture retained with a milled bar and attachments: a
clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2004 Jan;91(1):6-10. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.09.009.
52. Taylor TD, Agar JR. Twenty years of progress in implant prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 2002
Jul;88(1):89-95.
53. Khadivi V. Correcting a nonparallel implant abutment for a mandibular overdenture retained
by two implants: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2004 Sep;92(3):216-9. doi: 10.1016/j.
prosdent.2004.06.019.
54. Kurtzman GM. The locator attachment: free-standing versus bar-overdentures. Dental Labor
International Plus. 2009;1:20-23.
55. English CE. Critical A-P spread. Implant Soc. 1990 Mar-Apr;1(1):2-3.
56. Moeller MS, Duff RE, Razzoog ME. Rehabilitation of malpositioned implants with a CAD/CAM
milled implant overdenture: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2011 Mar;105(3):143-6. doi:
10.1016/S0022-3913(11)00025-4.
57. DeBoer J. Edentulous implants: overdenture versus fixed. J Prosthet Dent. 1993 Apr;69(4):386-90.
doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(93)90186-r.

16
Crest® + Oral-B® at dentalcare.com
58. Misch CE. Principles of Fixed Implant Prosthodontics: Cement-Retained Restorations. Dental
implant prosthetics, 2nd ed. St. Louis, MO. Elsevier Mosby; 2015:650-99.
59. Lewis MB, Klineberg I. Prosthodontic considerations designed to optimize outcomes for
single-tooth implants. A review of the literature. Aust Dent J. 2011 Jun;56(2):181-92. doi:
10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01322.x.
60. Chee W, Jivraj S. Screw versus cemented implant supported restorations. Br Dent J. 2006 Oct
21;201(8):501-507. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4814157.
61. Massad J, Wicks R, Ahuja S, Cagna DR. A Prosthesis Retention System for Full-Arch, Fixed,
Implant-Supported Prosthesis. J Prosthodont. 2019 Apr;28(4):e912-e916. doi: 10.1111/
jopr.12972. Epub 2018 Oct 8.
62. Guichet DL, Caputo AA, Choi H, Sorensen JA. Passivity of fit and marginal opening in screw- or
cement-retained implant fixed partial denture designs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000 Mar-
Apr;15(2):239-46.
63. Torrado E, Ercoli C, Al Mardini M, Graser GN, Tallents RH, Cordaro L. A comparison of the
porcelain fracture resistance of screw-retained and cement-retained implant-supported metal-
ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2004 Jun;91(6):532-7. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.03.014.
64. Yuzbasioglu E. A modified technique for extraoral cementation of implant retained restorations
for preventing excess cement around the margins. J Adv Prosthodont. 2014 Apr;6(2):146-9. doi:
10.4047/jap.2014.6.2.146. Epub 2014 Apr 22.
65. Schwedhelm ER, Lepe X, Aw TC. A crown venting technique for the cementation of implant-
supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Jan;89(1):89-90. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2003.66.
66. Lee JH, Park IS, Sohn DS. A digital approach to fabricating an abutment replica to control
cement volume in a cement-retained implant prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Jul;116(1):25-8.
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.008. Epub 2016 Mar 2.
67. Begum Z, Sonika R, Pratik C. Effect of different cementation techniques on retained excess
cement and uniaxial retention of the implant-supported prosthesis: an in vitro study. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Nov-Dec;29(6):1333-7. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3724. Epub 2014 Aug 20.
68. Zest Dental Solutions. LOCATOR F-Tx® Fixed Attachment System: Fixed Full-Arch Restorations.
Accessed February 22, 2021.
69. Engelman MJ, Sorensen JA, Moy P. Optimum placement of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet
Dent. 1988 Apr;59(4):467-73. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(88)90044-3.
70. Gowd MS, Shankar T, Ranjan R, Singh A. Prosthetic Consideration in Implant-supported
Prosthesis: A Review of Literature. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2017 Jun;7(Suppl 1):S1-S7.
doi: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_149_17. Epub 2017 Jun 20.
71. Pal US, Chand P, Dhiman NK, Singh RK, Kumar V. Role of surgical stents in determining the
position of implants. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2010 Jan;1(1):20-3. doi: 10.4103/0975-5950.69153.
72. Hultin M, Svensson KG, Trulsson M. Clinical advantages of computer-guided implant placement:
a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Oct;23 Suppl 6:124-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-
0501.2012.02545.x.
73. Ganz SD. Presurgical planning with CT-derived fabrication of surgical guides. J Oral Maxillofac
Surg. 2005 Sep;63(9 Suppl 2):59-71. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2005.05.156.
74. Shackleton JL, Carr L, Slabbert JC, Becker PJ. Survival of fixed implant-supported prostheses
related to cantilever lengths. J Prosthet Dent. 1994 Jan;71(1):23-6. doi: 10.1016/0022-
3913(94)90250-x.
75. El-Amier N, Elsaih E, Gibreel M, El-Motaiam H. Effect of Implant Location on Palateless Complete
Overdenture Retention: an In Vitro Study. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2018 Sep 30;9(3):e3. doi:
10.5037/jomr.2018.9303.

Additional Resources
• No Additional Resources Available.

17
Crest® + Oral-B® at dentalcare.com
About the Author

Swati Ahuja, BDS, MDS

Dr. Ahuja graduated with a BDS from Nair Hospital Dental College in 2002
and an MDS certificate in Prosthodontics from the University of Tennessee
Health Science Center, Memphis, TN. She then joined the same University as an
Assistant Professor in the Department of Prosthodontics where she worked for
3 and half years. She served as the editor for the Department of Prosthodontics
at University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN for the next 6
years. She has lectured nationally and internationally on various prosthodontic
topics at various dental conferences. She has more than 55 publications in
peer reviewed national and international journals. Dr. Ahuja is also the co-author of the textbook
titled, “Applications of the Neutral Zone in Prosthodontics.” Currently, she has a private practice in
Mumbai.

Email: [email protected]

18
Crest® + Oral-B® at dentalcare.com