Limits...
An in vitro comparative study to evaluate the retention of different attachment systems used in implant-retained overdentures

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Aim:: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the change in the retentive force and removal torque of three attachment systems during simulation of insertion-removal cycles.

Methodology:: 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 three different overdenture attachment systems, prefabricated ball/o-ring attachment (Lifecare Biosystems, Thane, India), Hader bar and clip attachment (Sterngold, Attleboro, MA), and Locator® implant overdenture attachment stud type (Zest Anchors LLC, USA). Using a universal testing machine, each of the models were subjected to 100 pulls each to dislodge the overdenture from the acrylic model, and the force values as indicated on the digital indicator were tabulated both before and after thermocycling (AT).

Statistical analysis used:: Statistical analysis comprised Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, Friedman test, and Wilcoxon signed ranks test.

Results:: The statistical model revealed a significantly different behavior of the attachment systems both before and AT. 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.

Conclusions and clinical implications:: The ball/o-ring and bar and clip attachments exhibit higher retentive capacities than the Locator® attachment over time.

No MeSH data available.


(a-c) Ball attachment, bar attachment, and Locator® attachment secured on to the implant replica on the acrylic resin model. (d-f) Acrylic resin overdenture with the o-ring housing for ball attachment, nylon ryder for the bar attachment, and the Locator male blue insert
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4837765&req=5

Figure 3: (a-c) Ball attachment, bar attachment, and Locator® attachment secured on to the implant replica on the acrylic resin model. (d-f) Acrylic resin overdenture with the o-ring housing for ball attachment, nylon ryder for the bar attachment, and the Locator male blue insert

Mentions: Each attachment system was secured into the implant replicas on the acrylic resin model and the overdentures with the corresponding housing were subsequently placed on it and tightened to 35 Ncm [Figure 3a–f].


An in vitro comparative study to evaluate the retention of different attachment systems used in implant-retained overdentures
(a-c) Ball attachment, bar attachment, and Locator® attachment secured on to the implant replica on the acrylic resin model. (d-f) Acrylic resin overdenture with the o-ring housing for ball attachment, nylon ryder for the bar attachment, and the Locator male blue insert
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4837765&req=5

Figure 3: (a-c) Ball attachment, bar attachment, and Locator® attachment secured on to the implant replica on the acrylic resin model. (d-f) Acrylic resin overdenture with the o-ring housing for ball attachment, nylon ryder for the bar attachment, and the Locator male blue insert
Mentions: Each attachment system was secured into the implant replicas on the acrylic resin model and the overdentures with the corresponding housing were subsequently placed on it and tightened to 35 Ncm [Figure 3a–f].

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Aim:: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the change in the retentive force and removal torque of three attachment systems during simulation of insertion-removal cycles.

Methodology:: 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 three different overdenture attachment systems, prefabricated ball/o-ring attachment (Lifecare Biosystems, Thane, India), Hader bar and clip attachment (Sterngold, Attleboro, MA), and Locator® implant overdenture attachment stud type (Zest Anchors LLC, USA). Using a universal testing machine, each of the models were subjected to 100 pulls each to dislodge the overdenture from the acrylic model, and the force values as indicated on the digital indicator were tabulated both before and after thermocycling (AT).

Statistical analysis used:: Statistical analysis comprised Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, Friedman test, and Wilcoxon signed ranks test.

Results:: The statistical model revealed a significantly different behavior of the attachment systems both before and AT. 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.

Conclusions and clinical implications:: The ball/o-ring and bar and clip attachments exhibit higher retentive capacities than the Locator® attachment over time.

No MeSH data available.