Article

The influence of interimplant distance and attachment type on the retention characteristics of mandibular overdentures on 2 implants: Initial retention values

The International journal of prosthodontics (Impact Factor: 1.19). 09/2006; 19(5):507-12.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This in vitro study aimed to investigate the influence of (1) the interimplant distance and (2) the type of attachment on the retention of mandibular overdentures on 2 implants.
Three stone casts were fabricated, each with 2 implant analogues embedded at distances of 19, 23, and 29 mm apart. Three different interchangeable mandibular overdenture attachments were secured onto the analogues: Hader bars, ball abutments, and stainless steel keepers for new generation neodymium-iron-boron magnets. In total, 45 groups of paired attachments were tested for initial vertical peak tensile load at the 3 interimplant distances.
Interimplant (interclip) distance played a significant role only in the retention produced by the Hader bar/red clip configuration. At 19 and 23 mm, the ball/socket attachments were statistically more retentive than the yellow clips, white clips, and magnets, but not compared to the red clips. At 29 mm, the ball abutments showed statistical superiority compared with all other attachments. Mean clinical intercanine distance for conventional full dentures was 22.88 mm.
Interimplant distance can affect the initial retention of mandibular overdentures on 2 implants depending on the type of attachment used. For a predetermined interimplant distance, attachment performance varies greatly.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: George Michelinakis, Sep 03, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
375 Views
 · 
132 Downloads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to review the published literature on in vitro articles investigating the retentive force or wear features of different attachment systems, specifically for mandibular two-implant overdentures using an unsplinted prosthodontic design. An electronic search was performed through PubMed, Embase, and Medline databases using Boolean operators to combine the following key words: "retention," "wear," "overdenture attachments," "attachment systems," "implant-retained overdentures," and "implant-supported overdentures." The search was limited to articles written in English published up to October 2008. In addition, a hand search through articles and reference lists retrieved from the electronic search and peer-reviewed journals was also conducted. From a total of 193 articles, only 15 met the specified inclusion criteria for the review. These articles provided evidence that the majority of attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures demonstrate a reduction in their retentive force under in vitro conditions. Wear was unquestionably implicated as the etiologic factor for the loss of retention; however, the specific mechanisms involved in the wear process have not been researched adequately. Findings from the literature have also implicated several factors that influence the retentive force of the attachment system and its wear features; compelling evidence on its precise role however, is still lacking. Further in vitro investigations of the factors involved in the retention and wear of attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures are still needed. These factors must be investigated separately under well-controlled conditions to limit the influence of confounding variables on their outcome.
    The International journal of prosthodontics 22(5):429-40. · 1.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This in vitro study evaluated the 6-month fatigue retention provided by 5 paired overdenture attachments placed at 3 different interimplant distances (19, 23, and 29 mm). Mean fatigue retention was calculated for each attachment type and compared with the retention produced by the other attachments tested and the initial retention values published earlier. Interimplant distance was found to play a significant role only in the retention of the Hader bar with red and yellow clips. A significant reduction in retention values was observed for 4 of 5 attachment types.
    The International journal of prosthodontics 03/2008; 21(2):152-4. · 1.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to investigate the retentive force of six different attachment systems used for mandibular single-implant overdentures, including two prototype large ball attachment designs. Two prototype ball attachments of larger dimensions (7.9 and 5.9 mm) and four commercially available ball and stud attachments of standard dimensions (2.25 and 4.0 mm) were evaluated on three identical test casts resembling an edentulous mandible with severe residual ridge resorption. Five samples from each attachment system (n=30) were connected to three different implants (8.0-mm wide diameter, 3.75-mm regular diameter, and 4.0-mm regular diameter). An Instron testing machine with a computer software package was used to deliver a vertical dislodging force at a cross-head speed of 50 mm/min to each overdenture sample from the anterior direction. A total of 300 pull tests were conducted (50 per attachment system). The maximum load (retentive force) required to separate each overdenture from the supporting implant was then measured. The highest retentive force (36.97+/-2.23 N) was achieved with the 7.9-mm prototype ball attachment design, followed in a decreasing order by the 5.9-mm prototype ball attachment design (32.06+/-2.59 N), the standard 2.25-mm ball attachment (17.32+/-3.68 N), Locator white (12.39+/-0.55 N), Locator pink (9.40 N+/-0.74 N), and Locator blue (3.83+/-0.64 N). A statistically significant difference (P<.0001) was found between all attachments. Attachment systems of larger dimensions provided higher retentive forces for mandibular single-implant overdentures. Further in vitro and in vivo research is necessary to determine prosthodontic outcomes with these attachments in edentulous patients prior to their routine clinical use internationally.
    The International journal of prosthodontics 01/2010; 23(2):160-6. · 1.19 Impact Factor
Show more