A Clinical Comparison of Prosthetic Complications of Implant-Supported Overdentures With Different Attachment Systems

Karabuda, Cüneyt; Yaltırık, Mehmet; Bayraktar, Mehmet

doi:10.1097/id.0b013e318166d88b

Cited by 71 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have been reported the evaluation of the ball and bar attachment systems. (7,9,10,16) On the other hand, there is a lack of clinical study which investigate the Locator attachment system. (15) The present study evaluated the comparison of the bar, ball and Locator attachment system with regard to a clinical point of view.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(7,8,9) Many clinical studies evaluated the use of the bar and ball attachments in terms of various clinical parameters. (9,10,11) The Locator attachment (Zest Anchors, Inc, homepage, Escondido, CA, USA) which was introduced in 2001, is a new system, which does not use the splinting of implants. This attachment is self-aligning and has dual retention and in different colors with different retention values.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Complications associated with the ball, bar and Locator attachments for implant-supported overdentures

Çakarer¹,

Can²,

Yaltırık³

et al. 2011

Med Oral

126

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the complications associated with the different attachments used in implant-supported overdentures, including prosthetic problems and implant failures. A comparison of ball, bar and Locator (Zest Anchors, Inc, homepage, Escondido, CA, USA) attachments, in completely edentulous patients with two, three or four implants, was conducted. Material and methods: A total of 36 edentulous patients (20 female, 16 male) with a mean age of 66.3 years, were enrolled in the study. The patients were treated with 95 implants, for the prosthetic restoration of the maxilla or the mandible. The mean follow-up time was 41.17 months. Prosthetic complications including, fractured overdentures, replacements of O-ring attachment and retention clips, implant failures, hygiene problems, mucosal enlargements, attachment fractures, retention loss and dislodgement of the attachments were recorded and evaluated. The recall visits at 3, 6, 12 months and, annually thereafter. Results: Fourteen complications in the ball attachment group and 7 complications in the bar group were observed. No complications were observed in the locator group. The difference was found to be as statistically significant (p=0,009). Six of the 95 implants had failed. Totally 39 implant overdentures were applied. Three prostheses were renewed because of fractures. Conclusion: Within the limits of the present study, it was concluded that the locator system showed superior clinical results than the ball and the bar attachments, with regard to the rate of prosthodontic complications and the maintenance of the oral function.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complications associated with the ball, bar and Locator attachments for implant-supported overdentures

Çakarer¹,

Can²,

Yaltırık³

et al. 2011

Med Oral

126

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All the studies were published from 2000-2017. In nineteen studies (10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29) the implants were placed by means of a standard surgical protocol in a healed normal implant site of bone Type III or IV. an ‗early' implant placement in two studies (Type II) was performed and immediate implant placement in other three studies (Type I) was done.…”

Section: Results:-mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Different Superstructure Materials of Implant Supported Restoration. A Systematic Review.

Mokhtar¹,

Fahmy²,

Mahrousand³

et al. 2018

IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:The purpose of this review was to recognize the biological complication of implant superstructure materials in comparative to alveolar bone loss around superstructure. Methodology: A search on the electronic database and additional a manual searching was focused to detect randomized clinical trials and other studies that gives a sign about superstructure complication. alveolar bone loss was ascribed to the amount of rescission, crestal bone and loss Pocket depth. Results:The initial search gives a twenty-six from an initial search of 144 studies and the analyzing data were tabled rendering to output complication. Pocket probing depth were recognized in eighteen clinical studies, Pocket probing depth around all ceramic superstructure was 3.1 mm versus 3.5 mm for porcelain fused to metal superstructure. sixteen studies inspected the recession index for all ceramic and porcelain fused to metal superstructure. recession index ranged from 0.1 to 0.5 at porcelain fused to metal superstructure and 0 to 0.3 at all ceramic superstructure. alveolar bone loss around all ceramic superstructure was itemized to differ from 0.21 -1.5 and 0.4 -1.5 mm at porcelain fused to metal superstructure. Conclusion: The information described in this systematic review did not give an indication for the complication regarding all ceramic versus porcelain fused to metal superstructure. However, it can be settled that the assessment of the randomized clinical trials did not provide an absolute prime for the choice of ceramic or porcelain fused to metal as superstructure material relative to alveolar bone response.

show abstract

“…The longevity of implant-supported dental prostheses is obtained by stability, passive fit of prosthetic infrastructures on the implant connections [1][2][3]. The absence of satisfactory fit induces the irregular distribution of masticatory loads, resulting in deformation of the adjacent bone tissue3 and of the prosthetic components [4][5], compromising the therapeutic success of the implant and its components [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microdeformation of Infrastructure for Implant-Supported fixed Dental Prosthesis by Strain-Gauge Method: Influence of Technique and Material Impression

Tonetto¹,

Ebrahim²,

Nogueira³

et al. 2015

Pesqui. bras. odontopediatria clín. integr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To verify the structural microdeformation by strain gages, around implants that have metal infrastructure, obtained by different materials and techniques impressions. Material and Methods: Three internal hexagon implants in polyurethane block (master model) with abutments were taken the impression with differents materials and techniques impression (n=4): addition silicon and transfer for open tray technique (Group I), condensation silicon and transfer for closed tray technique (Group II); and polyether and transfer for open tray techniques (Group III). Impressions were poured with type IV stone. Metallic infrastructure were made and installed in the master model by an aid of a manual ratchet wrench. A torque of 20N was used to install the metallic infrastructure. Microdeformation analysis was performed around the implants by strain gauge method. Two gauges were inserted into the polyurethane base, and three measurements were taken for each infrastructure. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and inference. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to verify association between materials and impression techniques and deformation around the implants, at 5% confidence. Results: Microdeformations around the implants showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.123) between the experimental groups, Group I (215.8 µε), Group II (194.9 µε) and Group III (297.4 µε). Conclusion: The use of different materials and techniques impression to made of infrastructures for fixed implant-supported dental prosthesis did not present difference in microdeformation values around implants.

show abstract

A Clinical Comparison of Prosthetic Complications of Implant-Supported Overdentures With Different Attachment Systems

Abstract: Implant-supported overdentures with bar or ball attachments may be considered to be reliable methods in the treatment of the edentulous individuals.

Cited by 71 publications

References 16 publications

Complications associated with the ball, bar and Locator attachments for implant-supported overdentures

Complications associated with the ball, bar and Locator attachments for implant-supported overdentures

The Effect of Different Superstructure Materials of Implant Supported Restoration. A Systematic Review.

Microdeformation of Infrastructure for Implant-Supported fixed Dental Prosthesis by Strain-Gauge Method: Influence of Technique and Material Impression

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About