The service life of implant-retained overdenture attachment systems

Pigozzo, Mônica Nogueira; Mesquita, Marcelo Ferraz; Henriques, Guilherme Elias Pessanha; Vaz, Luı́s Geraldo

doi:10.1016/s0022-3913(09)60112-8

Cited by 57 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This loss is usually abrupt after approximately 500 cycles, depending on the morphological characteristics of the system, and can reach 80% from the initial values after 2000 cycles (12, 20). In contrast, it was found that bar attachments do not show reduced retention even after 5500 cycles (21). Although those findings help to understand the clinical performance of the different attachment systems over time, they should be interpreted carefully.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of simulated masticatory loading on the retention of stud attachments for implant overdentures

Nader

Souza

Fortin

et al. 2010

Journal of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study assessed the effect of simulated mastication on the retention of two stud attachment systems for 2-implants overdentures. Sixteen specimens, each simulating an edentulous ridge with implants and an overdenture were divided into two groups, according to the attachment system: Group I (Nobel Biocare ball-socket attachments) and Group II (Locator attachments). Retention forces were measured before and after 400,000 simulated masticatory loads in a customised device. Data were compared by two-way anova followed by Bonferroni test (α = 0·05). Group I presented significantly lower retention forces (Newtons) than Group II at baseline (10·6 ± 3·6 and 66·4 ± 16·0, respectively). However, differences were not significant after 400,000 loads (7·9 ± 4·3 and 21·6 ± 17·0). The number of cycles did not influence the measurements in Group I, whereas a non-linear descending curve was found for Group II. It was concluded that simulated mastication resulted in minor changes for the ball attachment tested. Nevertheless, it reduced the retention of Locator attachments to 40% of the baseline values, what suggests that mastication is a major factor associated with maintenance needs for this system.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of simulated masticatory loading on the retention of stud attachments for implant overdentures

Nader

Souza

Fortin

et al. 2010

Journal of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…; Pigozzo et al. ). Some in vitro tests revealed less changes of retention force with plastic than with metal matrices (Wichmann & Kuntze ; Bayer et al.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…But such results cannot be directly transferred to the clinical situation and in vivo measurements are needed. In vitro studies of the retention forces of bars led to controversial results with a decrease in retentive force values (Walton & Ruse 1995) in contrast to an increase (Botega et al 2004;Pigozzo et al 2009). Some in vitro tests revealed less changes of retention force with plastic than with metal matrices (Wichmann & Kuntze 1999;Bayer et al 2007;Fromentin et al 2010); therefore, the plastic clips become more popular.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Retention force of plastic clips on implant bars: a randomized controlled trial

Bayer

Komor

Kramer

et al. 2011

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hader bar system is more economic and easily available as compare with other bar attachments 5. The vertical height of the plastic Hader bar can be easily adjusted on the master cast before casting, depending on the availability of the vertical space.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hader bar and clip attachment retained mandibular complete denture

Singh

Gupta²,

Kapoor³

et al. 2013

BMJ Case Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYBar and clip attachments significantly improve the level of satisfaction of denture-wearing patients by enhancing the retention and stability of the prosthesis. These attachments have been most commonly used for connecting the prosthesis to implants, but they can be effectively used to retain tooth-supported prosthesis as well. The primary functions of bar attachments are splinting the abutments together, even distribution of forces to the abutments and supporting areas, guiding the prosthesis into place, improving the retention, stability, support and comfort of the patient. The primary requirement for the use of bar attachments is the availability of sufficient vertical and buccolingual space for the proper placement of the bar, sleeves, teeth arrangement and sufficient thickness of acrylic denture base to minimise incidence of denture fracture in the area of bar assembly. BACKGROUND

show abstract

The service life of implant-retained overdenture attachment systems

Cited by 57 publications

References 13 publications

Effect of simulated masticatory loading on the retention of stud attachments for implant overdentures

Effect of simulated masticatory loading on the retention of stud attachments for implant overdentures

Retention force of plastic clips on implant bars: a randomized controlled trial

Hader bar and clip attachment retained mandibular complete denture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About