Evaluation and Comparison of Retention in Mandibular Implant Supported Overdenture by Using Ball and Flat Attachment –an in Vitro Study
Description
The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the retention in mandibular implant supported overdenture by using ball
and ball attachments. Edentulous mandibular models were made with heat-cured polymethyl methacrylate resin. Two
implant replicas (CMI), of 3.75 mm diameter and 10 mm length, were placed in the intraforaminal region. Acrylic resin
mandibular overdentures were fabricated and provision was made to receive two different overdenture attachment systems,
prefabricated ball/o-ring attachment (Lifecare Biosystems, Thane, India) and Hader bar and clip attachment (Sterngold,
Attleboro, MA). Using a universal testing machine. Statistical analysis comprised Shapiro-Wilk test, and student t test. The
statistical model revealed a significantly different behavior of the attachment systems both before and between the
ball/o-ring and bar attachments developed higher retentive force as compared to the locator attachment. The bar and clip
attachment exhibited the highest peak as well as the highest mean retention force at the end of the study. The Locator®
attachment showed a decrease in retentive potential after an early peak. The bar and clip attachment exhibited the greater
mean retention force in comparison to ball/-o ring attachment.
Files
5.pdf
Files
(1.2 MB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:5bda6c3963c0c67950a5b2b74d2504cc
|
1.2 MB | Preview Download |
Additional details
References
- 1. Müller F, Naharro M, Carlsson GE. What are the prevalence and incidence of tooth loss in the adult and elderly population in Europe? Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18 Suppl 3:2-14. 2. Carlsson GE, Omar R. The future of complete dentures in oral rehabilitation. A critical review. J Oral Rehabil 2010;37:143-56. 3. Polzer I, Schimmel M, Müller F, Biffar R. Edentulism as part of the general health problems of elderly adults. Int Dent J 2010;60:143-55. 4. Heckmann SM, Heussinger S, Linke JJ, Graef F, Pröschel P. Improvement and long-term stability of neuromuscular adaptation in implant-supported overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20 :1200-5. 5. Müller F, Hernandez M, Grütter L, Aracil-Kessler L, Weingart D, Schimmel M. Masseter muscle thickness, chewing efficiency and bite force in edentulous patients with fixed and removable implant-supported prostheses: A cross-sectional multicenter study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:144-50. 6. Thomason JM, Feine J, Exley C, Moynihan P, Müller F, Naert I, et al. Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for entulous patients – The York Consensus Statement. Br Dent J 2009;207:185-6. 7. Goldberg PV. Evolving in prosthetics with the Brånemark system. Les Cahiers de prothese. 1990 Dec 1(72):48-63. 8. Rutkunas V, Mizutani H, Takahashi H, Iwasaki N. Wear simulation effects on overdenture stud attachments. Dent Mater J 2011;30:845-53. 9. Müller F, Hernandez M, Grütter L, Aracil Kessler L, Weingart D, Schimmel M. Masseter muscle thickness, chewing efficiency and bite force in edentulous patients with fixed and removable implant supported prostheses: a cross sectional multicenter study. Clinical oral implants research. 2012 Feb;23(2):144-50. 10. Doundoulakis JH, Eckert SE, Lindquist CC, Jeffcoat MK. The implant-supported overdenture as an alternative to the complete Mandibular denture. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134:1455-8. 11. Cune M, van Kampen P, van der Bilt A, Bosman F. Patient satisfaction and preference with magnet, bar-clip, and ball-socket retained Mandibular implant overdentures: A cross-over clinical trial. Int J Prosthodont 2005;18:99-105. 12. Naert I, Gizani S, Vuylsteke M, Van Steenberghe D. 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. 13. Kobayashi M, Srinivasan M, Ammann P, Perriard J, Ohkubo C, Müller F, et al. Effects of in vitro cyclic dislodging on retentive force and removal torque of three overdenture attachment systems. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:426-34.
- 14. Alsabeeha NH, Payne AG, Swain MV. Attachment systems for Mandibular two-implant overdentures: A review of in vitro investigations on retention and wear features. Int J Prosthodont. 2009;22:429-40. 15. Wiskott H. Bioengineering applied to oral implantology. Biomechanical studies. In: Ballo A, editor. Implan Dentistry Research Guide: Basic, Translational and Clinical Research. 1st ed. Hauppauge, NY, USA: Nova Science Publishers. 2012. p. 369-426. 16. Yang TC, Maeda Y, Gonda T, Kotecha S. Attachment systems for implant overdenture: Influence of implant inclination on retentive and lateral forces. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22:1315-9. 17. Shastry T, Anupama NM, Shetty S, Nalinakshamma M. An in vitro comparative study to evaluate the retention of different attachment systems used in implant-retained overdentures. The Journal of the Indian Prosthodontic Society. 2017;16(2):159.w