In Vitro Effect of Mastication on the Retention and Wear of Locator Attachments in a Flat Mandibular Ridge Model

Tehini, Georges; Baba, Nadim Z.; Majzoub, Zeina; Nahas, Paul; Berbéri, Antoine; Rifaï, Khaldoun

doi:10.1111/jopr.12940

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is difficult to attribute this reduction to dimensional changes of the inner core or the inner diameter of the inserts, since no significant correlations were found between changes in retentive forces and wear-related measurement changes. An explanation of these unexpected changes in retention could be related to surface deterioration of the insert surface with subsequent increase in surface roughness through micromechanical friction (15). In agreement with this finding, Kleis et al (16) demonstrated that Positioner attachments lost some of their retentive capacity over time as a result of wear of the patrix Positioner parts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

The Effect of Implant Locations on the Stress Transmitted to Implant-Tooth-Assisted Partial Overdenture (In Vitro Study)

Kadeeb

Dakkak

Shelib

et al. 2020

Alexandria Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION: Posterior free end edentulous areas are more prevalent among population. Absence of posterior abutments to support and retain partial dentures affects the prognosis of prostheses. A problem of support, retention and stability is usually associated with distal extension removable partial dentures. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the effect of implant locations on the retention of the prostheses of implant tooth assisted partial overdenture for mandibular Kennedy class II with implant located in first premolar area and second molar area. Second objective was to evaluate the wear of female parts of the attachments attached to these implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted on two parallel groups according to the different implant locations: Group (A) implant in first premolar area, Group (B) implant in second molar area. Two acrylic models with Kennedy class II were used in this study. Two implants with (2.3mm length and 3.6mm width), two positioner attachments were attached to implants and inserted in the previous locations for both groups. Each group had 9 sets of attachments with 3 different colored plastic matrices (27 matrices) with different retention force. A metallic overdenture with acrylic resin base and teeth was constructed for each group. By using the universal testing machine, vertical load dislodgment forces were measured at anterior of the saddle of the denture and posterior of the saddle of the denture for both groups at the beginning of the study (initial retention) and after 50,000 cyclic with load of 20 K at first molar area, the retention test was repeated and the mean value was recorded. All retention parts were imaged under stereomicroscope to study wear and attrition of internal components. All data from both groups in this in-vitro study was gathered, tabulated and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: In vertical dislodging, Group (B) posterior of the saddle, recorded the highest retention force. In Group (B) anterior of the saddle recorded the lowest retention force. After 50,000 cyclic loading, Group (B) posterior of the saddle was higher than Group (A) in retention force. Dimensional changes and wear scratches appeared in the metal housing and plastic matrices in central and outer lines. CONCLUSIONS: The distal position of the implant with positioner attachment has great retention during vertical dislodgment compared with mesial implant location with positioner attachment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

The Effect of Implant Locations on the Stress Transmitted to Implant-Tooth-Assisted Partial Overdenture (In Vitro Study)

Kadeeb

Dakkak

Shelib

et al. 2020

Alexandria Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…ERA ® , Locator ® and CM Loc ® RD decrease significantly in long term retention, and in particular for Locator ® (66 to 75% of their initial retention) compared to CM Loc ® (32 to 47%) after 30,000 IRC (16 years) [ 29 ], and this appears earlier for ERA ® RD (85% after 1000 IRC/1 year) [ 21 , 23 ]. In general, for Locator ® , a significant decrease in retention is even observed during the first 10 to 20 IRC, but retention loss remains not significant after 100,000 CC (3 months) [ 13 , 46 ]. Nevertheless, a progressive decrease is observed until 1000 to 2000 IRC (i.e.,1 to 2 years of clinical service) [ 5 , 10 , 13 , 35 , 41 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Retention, Wear, and Maintenance of Attachment Systems for Single- or Two-Implant-Retained Mandibular Overdentures: A Systematic Review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attachment systems (AS) enhance retention and stability by anchoring the overdentures to implants. Since 2002, the McGill consensus statement recommends the 2-implant-retained overdentures as the standard choice for edentulous mandible (2-IRMO). Considering the large number of AS available, it remains difficult for a practitioner to make a reasoned choice. A systematic review was conducted in PubMed/Medline and carried out independently by three authors, on retention, wear, and maintenance of AS used clinically or in vitro specifically for 1- or 2-IRMO. The 45 selected studies include 14 clinical and 31 in vitro studies. The risk of bias was evaluated according to the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). The initial retention force of the cylindrical system is higher than the ball system. The retention loss, related to the wear of the retention device, is responsible for the most common need of maintenance, requiring activation or replacement. Plastic retention devices wear out faster and more significantly than metal ones, implying a worse time behavior of cylindrical systems, but their maintenance rate is similar. Neither system appears categorically superior. Cylindrical systems provide higher initial retention than ball ones; this advantage reduces over time with wear without affecting their need for maintenance.

show abstract

“…It seems that improving the stability of the maxillary overdenture leads to an increased need for adjustments in the less stable mandibular overdenture. Moreover, in this study, all participants first received the blue, extra‐light retention Locator inserts, which might also affect the wear of the inserts (Tehini et al., 2019). The pink or transparent inserts were used after the first change in ascending order and might need replacing less often and might therefore be recommended for use.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maxillary implant overdentures on two or four implants. A prospective randomized cross‐over clinical trial of implant and denture success and survival

Kappel

Klotz

Eberhard

et al. 2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To determine implant survival and success of four conventionally but initially asynchronously loaded implants in implant‐supported overdentures for the edentulous maxilla, in participants with opposing mandibular two‐implant overdentures. Material and methods Twenty‐six participants received four implants in the region of the maxillary canines and molars. After healing, 24 of these participants (mean age: 68.3 years) were randomly allocated to one of two treatment groups, and the adapted overdenture was attached to two unsplinted cylindrical attachments. The other two matrixes remained unattached to the implants for 3 months. After this period, the other two implants were loaded for 3 months (cross‐over design). Then, all four implants were loaded for another 3 months. Kaplan–Meier curves were used to evaluate survival and success of implants and dentures. Results During the active prosthetic study phase, three participants lost one implant. Two participants lost three implants during the recall period. Implant survival after loading was 93.8% after a mean observation period of 3.1 years. Denture survival was 100%, but denture success was 95.8%, due to major prosthetic complications. Most participants preferred four implants to two. Conclusions Within the limitations of the study, it can be concluded that maxillary implant overdentures on two or four implants are both recommendable treatment options. Two posterior implants are not superior to two anterior implants under overdentures retained by unsplinted cylindrical attachments. Implant and prosthetic complications and aftercare measures are common but are mostly easy to handle. However, 23 of the 24 participants preferred the 4‐implant maxillary overdenture.

show abstract

In Vitro Effect of Mastication on the Retention and Wear of Locator Attachments in a Flat Mandibular Ridge Model

Cited by 10 publications

References 30 publications

The Effect of Implant Locations on the Stress Transmitted to Implant-Tooth-Assisted Partial Overdenture (In Vitro Study)

The Effect of Implant Locations on the Stress Transmitted to Implant-Tooth-Assisted Partial Overdenture (In Vitro Study)

Evaluation of Retention, Wear, and Maintenance of Attachment Systems for Single- or Two-Implant-Retained Mandibular Overdentures: A Systematic Review

Maxillary implant overdentures on two or four implants. A prospective randomized cross‐over clinical trial of implant and denture success and survival

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About