A Novel Extended Range Attachment System to Retain Implant Overdentures: A Clinical Report

Abstract

Various attachment systems have been used to facilitate the retention, stability, and support of overdentures. The low profile design, pivoting technology, and durability of the Locator attachment made it one of the commonly used tissue-supported implant-retained overdentures. It has been successfully used to retain overdentures as well as partial dentures. This article describes the uses of the new Locator R-Tx abutment and illustrates both the direct and indirect techniques used to process the denture attachment housing into the prosthesis to retain overdentures and partial dentures.

Five-year Radiographic Changes of Residual Ridges under Maxillary Complete Denture and its Opposing Mandibular Two Implant-Retained Overdenture with Different Resilient Attachments

“…To connect two implants with overdentures, resilient stud and bar attachments are available. However, the choice of the suitable attachment depends on the arch form, the available prosthetic space, the implant's inclination, and the retention value required (3)(4)(5) .…”

“…When the patient bites, consequently, the inherent space between the patrix and matrix is lost to allow both implant and mucosal support of the denture during function (3,4,9) . However, the amount of occlusal load transmitted by these attachments is a factor of their resiliency that determines their prosthetic complications (10,11,5) . In contrast to Jacobs et al (12,13) a study by Tymstra et al (6) concluded that patients treated with an IROD did not show higher residual ridge resorption (RRR) in anterior maxillary area in comparison to patients used a conventional complete denture.…”

“…The unique design of the Locator patrix, unlike traditional ball abutments, is represented by a replaceable nylon insert on the intaglio surface of the overdenture (11,5) . This design makes the low profile and dual retentive features of the Locator attachment combined the best features of both ball and ERA attachments (11) .…”

“…However, the original locator design allows food debris being lodged on the top of the abutment, potentially resulting in rapid distortion of the nylon insert with rapid loss of retention (11,21) . New Locator designs (like Positioner attachment) were innovated with the absence of the central stud in the nylon inserts to permit movement about all axes, thus reducing loads applied to the implants and the supporting bone (5,21) .…”

Effect of two different Overdenture attachments on the biting force and occlusal force distribution

“…This can be explained by reducing the lever arm length resulting in a better mechanical advantage. (13)(14)(15) Easy seating in the oral cavity by the patient, self-aligning feature allow the ability to fit non-parallel implants up to 40° C divergence have been advocated as a suitable alternative to the classical widely used ball attachment. Other studies have reported that the highest retentive force and maintained that force up to 30˚ tilting more in locator attachment system when compared to ball system.…”