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). 01/2006; 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.

Full-text

Available from: George Michelinakis, Jun 14, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
361 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The effect of inter-implant distance on retention and resistance of implant-tissue-supported overdentures is lacking in the literature. An in vitro study was performed to evaluate this effect for mandibular implant-tissue-supported overdentures retained by two ball attachments. An acrylic cast of an edentulous mandible was fabricated. Three pairs of implants were symmetrically placed at both sides of the midline. The inter-implant distance was 10, 25, and 35 millimeters in positions A, B and C, respectively. A framework simulating the overdenture was fabricated on the cast. Six attachment housings were placed within the overdenture. For each sample, two ball abutments were screwed onto the implant pairs and two pink nylon inserts were seated in their respective attachment housings. The samples were tested in three groups of 15 (A, B, and C). The testing machine applied tensile dislodging forces and peak loads were measured in three directions: vertical, oblique, and anterior-posterior. A one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's HSD was used to determine groups that were significantly different. Tests were carried out at 0.05 level of significance. Peak loads for the anterior-posteriorly directed dislodging forces were significantly the highest for group C (P<0.05); 21.25 N±3.05 N, while there were no statistically significant differences among groups with vertically and obliquely directed forces (P>0.05). Inter-implant distance did not affect the vertical retention and oblique resistance of mandibular implant-tissue-supported overdentures; however, it affected anterior-posterior resistance.
    09/2014; 11(5):506-15.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this literature review, we examine advantages and disadvantages of current magnetic attachments and critical points to utilize them effectively, using a Q&A format. We mainly focus on corrosion, leak of magnetic flux, influence on magnetic resonance imaging, deterioration of retentive force, distance between attachments, clinical and laboratory procedures, maintenance, clinical evaluation and maxillofacial application of the magnetic attachments. We would like to reconfirm with readers that designing and fabricating dentures properly are prerequisites for taking advantage of magnetic attachments.
    Japanese Dental Science Review 08/2011; 47(2):124-130. DOI:10.1016/j.jdsr.2011.04.004
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The location of dental implants and the choice of retentive attachments for implant-retained overdentures are selected based on clinician preference, expert opinion, or empirical information. Limited information is available regarding implant position and the effect on the retention and stability of 2-implant mandibular implant overdentures. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the effect of implant location on the in vitro retention and stability of a simulated 2-implant-supported overdenture and to examine the differences among different attachment systems. A model that simulates a mandibular edentulous ridge with dental implants in positions that approximate tooth positions, and a cobalt-chromium cast framework attached to a universal testing machine was used to measure the peak load (N) required to disconnect the attachments. Four different types of attachments (Ball/Cap, ERA, Locator, and O-Ring) were used in sequence in various positions on the model to evaluate the effect of implant location on the retention and stability of a simulated 2-implant-retained overdenture. Means were calculated, and differences among the systems, directions, and groups were identified by using a repeated measured ANOVA (α=.05). For differences observed between measurements, the Bonferroni post hoc method at the 5% level of significance was used to determine the location and magnitude of difference. The interactions between the attachment system, direction of force, and implant location were statistically significant (P=.01). The vertical retention and horizontal stability of a simulated overdenture prosthesis increased with the distal implant location up to the second premolar, and the anteroposterior stability increased with distal implant location. The attachment type affected retention and stability differently by location. Ball attachments produced the highest levels of retention and stability, followed by Locator (pink), O-Ring, and ERA (orange). The retention and stability of a 2-implant simulated overdenture prosthesis is significantly affected by implant location (P=.01) and abutment type (P=.01).
    The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 05/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.03.003 · 1.42 Impact Factor