Locators versus magnetic attachment effect on peri‐implant tissue health of immediate loaded two implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: a 1‐year randomised trial

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate peri-implant tissue health of immediate loaded two implants retaining a mandibular overdenture with either magnetic or locator attachment. Thirty two completely edentulous patients (20 males/12 females) were randomly assigned into two groups. Each patient received two implants in the canine area of the mandible using flapless surgical technique. Mandibular overdentures were immediately connected to the implants with either magnetic (group I, GI) or locator (group II, GII) attachments. Peri-implant tissue health was evaluated clinically in terms of plaque scores (PI), bleeding scores (BI), probing depth (PD), implant stability (ISQ) and interleukin-1-β (IL-1b) concentrations in peri-implant sulcular fluid. PI, BI and PD were measured at mesial, distal, buccal and lingual surfaces of each implant. Radiographic evaluation was performed in terms of vertical (VBL) and horizontal (HBLO) alveolar bone loss. Evaluations were performed 2 weeks (T0), 6 months (T1) and 12 months (T2) after overdenture insertion. Plague scores, PD, IL-1b, VBL and HBLO increased significantly with time. ISQ decreased significantly with time. BI showed no significant differences between observation times. GI recorded significant higher PI, ISQ and IL-1b at T2 compared to GII. GII recorded significant higher VBL than GI at T2 only. For HBLO, no significant differences between groups were noted. VBL and HBLO showed a significant positive correlation with PD. Locator attachments for immediate loaded implants retaining mandibular overdentures are associated with decreased plaque accumulation, decreased implant stability, decreased interleukin-1β concentration in peri-implant crevicular fluid and increased per-implant vertical bone loss compared to magnetic attachments after 1 year.

One‐year clinical outcomes of locking taper Equator attachments retaining mandibular overdentures to narrow diameter implants

“…The clinical findings reported in the present study, with a success rate of 83.3% for NDI connected to locking taper stud abutments as MO retainers, demonstrate a stable clinical behavior after the osseointegration period. However, some studies showed a significant increase in the peri-implant health indices over time 16,35,36. The evaluations of the PI, GI, and calculus index in our study indicate that higher values for these indices occur during osseointegration.…”

“…Despite the fact that it is known that the attachment system based on a stud abutment has greater retention and stability than ball or magnet type systems, the results from Elsyad et al36 showed that a group rehabilitated with locator type stud abutments experienced 0.31 mm more vertical MBL than a group using magnetic abutments after 1 year. Despite the fact that it is known that the attachment system based on a stud abutment has greater retention and stability than ball or magnet type systems, the results from Elsyad et al36 showed that a group rehabilitated with locator type stud abutments experienced 0.31 mm more vertical MBL than a group using magnetic abutments after 1 year.…”

“…The latter indicates that they are a safe treatment option, especially considering that the sample population can be considered at risk because they present clinical mandibular atrophy.Peri-implant tissue health evaluation is routine for the clinician, and the patient care with the new clinical condition is also improved by frequent hygiene reinforcement, further increasing the chance of treatment success 34. During their comparison of locator and magnetic types of attachment systems, Elsyad et al36 showed that the magnetic attachment presented greater plaque accumulation after 1 year of follow-up.The peri-implant health indices are interdependent, as an increase in the PI or calculus index leads to peri-implant soft tissue inflammation, possibly increasing PD levels and BOP, and this may result in marginal bone loss 34,37. As these patients were edentulous for a long time and, thus, required a period of adaptation to the new clinical condition when we emphasized or reinforced the hygiene routines, these periimplant health indices improved significantly over time Quirynen et al18 also evaluated OM wearers and reported that the majority of the patients had scores of 0 or 1 for PI.…”

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

“…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).…”

Behaviour of Implant-Bearing Overdenture Materials with a Change in Number and Position Implants. What Happen with all on Four Protocols?

“…There is an absence of contrasted, and more long-term, evidence on the reduction or non-overloading of implant angulation, following the All on four protocols [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39].…”