Attachment Systems for Implant Retained Overdentures: A Literature Review

Trakas, Theodoros; Michalakis, Konstantinos; Kang, Ki-Ho; Hirayama, Hiroshi

doi:10.1097/01.id.0000202419.21665.36

Cited by 257 publications

(240 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

214

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other factors, such as bone quality and quantitiy, arch morphology seem to play far more important roles in implant survival rates. (12) In the present study there was no statistically significant difference between the ball, bar and locator group regarding the implant failure (p=0,339) The authors are agree with Trakas and colleagues (13), which reported that the correct placement of the implants affects the maintenence of the attachment systems. Sadowsky (7) reported that, there was no statistical difference when long-term maintenance is compared among mandibular implant overdentures retained by 2 implants in contrast to those retained by 3 or more implants.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

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

127

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: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

“…This attachment is self-aligning and has dual retention and in different colors with different retention values. (6,12,13) Locator attachments are available in different vertical heights, they are resilient, retentive, and durable, and have some built-in angulation compensation. In addition, repair and replacement are fast and easy.…”

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

127

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Locators are also resilient and self-aligning and have different degrees of retention values and built-in angulation compensations. In addition, the repair and replacement of these attachments is simple and easy (7,8). Furthermore, Locator attachments are associated with favorable clinical and radiographic peri-implant outcomes (9,10).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peri-implant strain around mesially inclined two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures with Locator attachments

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to evaluate the periimplant strain around mesially inclined implants used to retain mandibular overdentures with Locator resilient attachments. Four mandibular edentulous acrylic resin models received two implants in the canine areas with 0°, 5°, 10°, and 20° mesial inclinations. Overdentures were connected to the implants using Locator attachments. Pink nylon inserts (light retention) were used for all implant inclinations, and red inserts were used for 20° inclination (20°red). Four strain gages were bonded on the mesial (M), distal (D), buccal (B), and lingual (L) surfaces of each implant. Peri-implant strains were measured during bilateral and unilateral loading. The 20° inclination showed the highest strain, followed by 10° and 5°, and both 0° and 20°red presented with the lowest strain. Site D was associated with the highest strain, followed by M, B, and L, which showed the lowest strain values. Unilateral loading and the loading side presented with significantly higher strain values than bilateral loading and the nonloading side, respectively. Hence, in this study, strains around the two-implant-retained overdentures with Locator attachments increased with increases in mesial implant angulation, except when red male inserts were used.

show abstract

“…[5][6][7] The choice of attachments usually depends on the clinical situation at hand. 8 For instance, splinted bars cannot be used in cases where the interarch space is limited. On the other hand, nonsplinted solitary attachments require less interarch space, need minimal to no laboratory support, are less technique sensitive, and can be fabricated at a lower cost.…”

Section: S183 Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rehabilitation of completely edentulous mandibular arch using immediately loaded transmucosal single-piece implants and overdenture

Kumar

Legha

Kumar

et al. 2016

Medical Journal Armed Forces India

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attachment Systems for Implant Retained Overdentures: A Literature Review

Cited by 257 publications

References 36 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

Peri-implant strain around mesially inclined two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures with Locator attachments

Rehabilitation of completely edentulous mandibular arch using immediately loaded transmucosal single-piece implants and overdenture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About