A Comparison of Three Different Attachment Systems for Mandibular Two‐Implant Overdentures: One‐Year Report

Kleis, Wilfried K G; Kämmerer, Peer W.; Hartmann, Sinsa; Al‐Nawas, Bilal; Wagner, Wilfried

doi:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00154.x

Cited by 185 publications

(230 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

199

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, repair and replacement are fast and easy. (5,14,15) There is a lack of clinical studies on the Locator system. (15) In the authors' knowledge there is no documented clinical study which compare the bar, ball and Locator system.…”

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

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: 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

“…Even if the in vitro studies show differences between the systems, the clinical results do not always show the same pattern. Patients that have severely atrophic mandibles, when rehabilitated with an overdenture, feel a significant improvement in the quality of life, regardless of the different attachment systems used or on the number of implants [5,6,13,16,22]. However, prosthetic maintenance and possible complications may be influenced by the system used [25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is considered the system with the lowest profile height [22], 0 to 6 mm depending on the gingival thickness. Consequently, they are especially indicated when the height of the denture and the inter-arch distance is inadequate for ball attachments or other attachments systems [21].…”

Section: Locatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Precision Attachments: A Review to Guide Clinicians

Roy¹,

Idzior-Haufa²,

Hędzelek³

2016

Dent. Med. Probl.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Uit een recent onderzoek bleek dat het verankeringssysteem op termijn van 1 jaar significant meer nazorg nodig had dan andere solitaire mesostructuren (afb. 4) (Kleis et al, 2010). Het is de vraag of het mogelijk gemakkelijkere gebruik van dit verankeringssysteem opweegt tegen de extra kosten van de nazorg.…”

Section: Kostenunclassified

Kanttekeningen bij een overkappingsprothese op 2 implantaten als gouden standaard voor de behandeling van een edentate onderkaak

Wismeijer

Bruggenkate

Schulten

2011

NTvT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Comparison of Three Different Attachment Systems for Mandibular Two‐Implant Overdentures: One‐Year Report

Cited by 185 publications

References 24 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

Precision Attachments: A Review to Guide Clinicians

Kanttekeningen bij een overkappingsprothese op 2 implantaten als gouden standaard voor de behandeling van een edentate onderkaak

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About