Evaluation of the retention characteristics of various stud attachment systems for implant retained overdenture

• Autorzy: Gonuldas F. , Tokar E. , Ozturk C.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5277/ABB-01263-2018-02

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The purpose of the study was to analyze and compare retention characteristics of different stud attachments including a standard and two low profile attachments on two implant embedded test models. Methods: Three different stud attachment systems (Ball attachment and two different low profile stud attachments – Equator and Locator) were used in this study. Two dental implants were placed vertically into a custom-made acrylic resin block within a 22 mm distance. Strong and soft nylon inserts of each attachment system were tested using cyclic dislodgement test for 24 months simulation. Maximum forces during the test were recorded and 10 consecutive data at baseline, 1st to 24th months were analyzed. Repeated measures ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey’s test ( p  0.05) were used for statistical analysis. Results: Retentive forces of the tested attachments varied from 30.7 to 93.75 N at the baseline. The highest initial mean retention (93.75 N) was observed in Group LC (locator attachment with clear nylon inserts) and the lowest initial mean retention (30.7 N) was detected in both Group BO (ball attachment with orange nylon inserts) and Group EY (equator with yellow nylon inserts). After the 24 months simulation, locator groups illustrated more light retention than other tested attachment systems. Conclusions: All tested attachment systems showed a significant decrease in retention value at the end of the simulated period. The locator attachment had significantly higher reduction in retention values compared to other low profile stud attachment equator and ball attachment.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

overdenture; implant-supported dental prosthesis; denture precision attachment; retention

PL

implant; zamocowanie; proteza; retencja

• Wydawca: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Wrocławskiej
• Czasopismo: Acta of Bioengineering and Biomechanics
• Rocznik: 2018
• Tom: Vol. 20, no. 4
• Strony: 135--141
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 30 poz., rys., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Gonuldas F.

• Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey

autor

Tokar E.

• Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

autor

Ozturk C.

• Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mustafa Kemal University, Hatay, Turkey

Bibliografia

• [1] ALSABEEHA N.H., PAYNE A.G., SWAIN M.V., Attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: a review of in vitro investigations on retention and wear features, Int. J. Prosthodont., 2009, 22, 429–440.
• [2] BERNARDES S.R., DE ARAUJO C.A., NETO A.J., SIMAMOTO JUNIOR P., DAS NEVES F.D., Photoelastic analysis of stress patterns from different implant-abutment interfaces. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants, 2009, 24, 781–789.
• [3] CELIK G., ULUDAG B., Photoelastic stress analysis of various retention mechanisms on 3-implant-retained mandibular overdentures, J. Prosthet. Dent., 2007, 97, 229–235.
• [4] CHUNG K.H, CHUNG C.Y., CAGNA D.R., CRONIN R.J. Jr., Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant overdentures, J. Prosthodont., 2004, 13, 221–226.
• [5] DOUKAS D., MICHELINAKIS G., SMITH P.W., BARCLAY C.W., 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, 152–154.
• [6] EVTIMOVSKA E., MASRI R., DRISCOLL C.F., ROMBERG E., The change in retentive values of locator attachments and hadermclips over time, J. Prosthodont., 2009, 18, 479–483.
• [7] FEINE J.S., CARLSSON G.E., AWAD M.A., CHEHADE A., DUNCAN W.J., GIZANI S. et al., The McGill Consensusm Statement on overdentures, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, May 24–25, 2002. Int. J. Prosthodont., 2002, 15, 413–414.
• [8] GULIZIO M.P., AGAR J.R., KELLY J.R., TAYLOR T.D., Effect of implant angulation upon retention of overdenture attachments, J. Prosthodont., 2005, 14, 3–11.
• [9] HECKMANN S.M., WINTER W., MEYER M., WEBER H.P., WICHMANN M.G., Overdenture attachment selection and the loading of implant and denture-bearing area. Part 1: In vivo verification of stereolithographic model, Clin. Oral Implants Res., 2001, 12, 617–623.
• [10] HECKMANN S.M., WINTER W., MEYER M., WEBER H.P., WICHMANN M.G., Overdenture attachment selection and the loading of implant and denture-bearing area. Part 2: A methodical study using five types of attachment, Clin. Oral Implants Res., 2001, 12, 640–647.
• [11] MANJU V., SREELAL T., Mandibular implant-supported overdenture: an in vitro comparison of ball, bar, and magnetic attachments, J. Oral Implantol., 2013, 39, 302–307.
• [12] MERICSKE-STERN R.D., TAYLOR T.D., BELSER U., Management of the edentulous patient, Clin. Oral Implants Res., 2000, 11, Suppl. 1, 108–125.
• [13] MICHELINAKIS G., BARCLAY C.W., SMITH P.W., The influence of interimplant distance and attachment type on the retention characteristics of mandibular overdentures on 2 implants: Initial retention values. Int. J. Prosthodont., 2006, 19, 507–512.
• [14] MINGUEZ-TOMAS N., ALONSO-PEREZ-BARQUERO J., FERNANDEZ--ESTEVAN L., VICENTE-ESCUDER A., SELVA-OTAOLAURRUCHI E.J., In vitro retention capacity of two overdenture attachment systems: Locator® and Equator®, J Clin. Exp. Dent., 2018, 10, e681–e686.
• [15] NAERT I., ALSAADI G., QUIRYNEN M., Prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction with two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a 10-year randomized clinical study, Int. J. Prosthodont., 2004, 17, 401–410.
• [16] ROY S., DAS M., CHAKRABORTY P., BISWAS J.K., CHATTERJEE S., KHUTIA N. et al., Optimal selection of dental implant for different bone conditions based on the mechanical response, Acta Bioeng. Biomech., 2017, 19, 11–20.
• [17] SADIG W., A comparative in vitro study on the retention and stability of implant-supported overdentures, Quintessence Int. 2009, 40, 313–319.
• [18] SADOWSKY S.J., Mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a literature review, J. Prosthet. Dent., 2001, 86, 468–473.
• [19] SETZ J., LEE S.H., DENT M., ENGEL E., Retention of prefabricated attachments for implant stabilized overdentures in the edentulous mandible: An in vitro study, J. Prosthet. Dent., 1998, 80, 323–329.
• [20] SULTANA N., BARTLETT D.W., SULEIMAN M., Retention of implant-supported overdentures at different implant angulations: comparing Locator and ball attachments, Clin. Oral Implants Res., 2017, 28, 1406–1410.
• [21] TABATABAIAN F., SABOURY A., SOBHANI Z.S., PETROPOULOS V.C., The effect of inter-implant distance on retention and resistance to dislodging forces for mandibular implant-tissue-supported overdentures, J. Dent. (Tehran), 2014, 11, 506–515.
• [22] THOMASON J.M., FEINE J., EXLEY C., MOYNIHAN P., MULLER F., NAERT I. et al., Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients – the York Consensus Statement, Br. Dent. J., 2009, 207, 185–186.
• [23] TOKAR E., ULUDAG B., Load transfer characteristics of various designs of three-implant-retained mandibular overdentures, Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants, 2015, 30, 1061–1067.
• [24] TOKAR E., ULUDAG B., Effects of low-profile stud attachment configurations on stress distribution characteristics of implant-retained overdentures, Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants, 2018, 33, 754–763.
• [25] TOKAR E., ULUDAG B., KARACAER O., Load transfer characteristics of three-implant-retained overdentures with different interimplant distances, Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants, 2017, 32, 363–371.
• [26] TOKUHISA M., MATSUSHITA Y., KOYANO K., In vitro study of a mandibular implant overdenture retained with ball, magnet, or bar attachments: comparison of load transfer and denture stability, Int. J. Prosthodont., 2003, 16, 128–134.
• [27] TRAKAS T., MICHALAKIS K., KANG K., HIRAYAMA H., Attachment systems for implant retained overdentures: a literature review, Implant Dent., 2006, 15, 24–34.
• [28] ULUDAG B., POLAT S., Retention characteristics of different attachment systems of mandibular overdentures retained by two or three implants, Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants, 2012, 27, 1509–1513.
• [29] ULUDAG B., POLAT S., SAHIN V., COMUT A.A., Effects of implant angulations and attachment configurations on the retentive forces of locator attachment-retained overdentures, Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants, 2014, 29, 1053–1057.
• [30] VARGHESE R.M., MASRI R., DRISCOLL C.F., ROMBERG E., The effect of denture cleansing solutions on the retention of yellow Hader clips: an in vitro study, J. Prosthodont., 2007, 16, 165–171.