Mastication Wear of Two Low Profile Attachment Systems for Overdenture: An In Vitro Study

Abstract

Background. Edentulism is still a major problem in the world’s population today. Implant-retained overdenture has proven to be a valid therapeutic solution in the mandible. This type of rehabilitation requires replacement of the matrices when those reach inadequate retention due to wearing processes. This study is aimed at evaluating the drop in retention of low-profile precision attachments following the application of vertical chewing forces. Two different attachment designs were compared. Methods. This in vitro study simulated an implant-retained overdenture on an edentulous mandible. Two low-profile attachments were compared. Loaded and unloaded sides were considered. Tests were performed by exerting a vertical cyclic force on the prosthesis at the level of the first molar of a hemiarch. Retention tests were performed before and after 400.000 chewing cycles, comparable to one year of use. Results. The presence of vertical load wear was identified and characterized. Retention never fell below the values indicated by the manufacturer. Furthermore, significant differences were identified between the two retention systems. Conclusions. Loss of occlusal load retention is a component that must be evaluated by the clinician during the design of implant-prosthetic rehabilitation, particularly in those cases where elevated occlusal forces or parafunctions are present.

Implant Survival Rate and Prosthetic Complications of OT Equator Retained Maxillary Overdenture: A Cohort Study

“…This condition allows patients to avoid and considerably limit the number of implants necessary for the retention of the prosthesis, a favorable condition in light of the levels of greater tissue inflammation resulting from implant placement, and increase the inter-implant distance, a favorable condition for implant survival [12][13][14][15]. In addition to the reduced number of implants that can be used in this type of rehabilitation, it is also necessary to consider the type of attachments used in this study and the different alternatives findable in the market that certainly offer different biomechanical solutions [16][17][18].…”