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: 1.63). 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.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the effect of maximum bite force (mBF) on marginal bone loss (MBL) around mini-implants in edentulous patients wearing mandibular overdentures with two retention systems: ball and bar. Forty-five totally edentulous patients were selected from a public health center. All of them received two mini-implants (1.8 x 15 mm; Sendax) in the anterior mandible using a minimally invasive technique. A single randomization was performed to allocate the patients in two groups. Group I (n=22) received two single ball-type mini-implants and Group II (n=23) received two mini-implants splinted with a prefabricated bar. The mBF was recorded using a press-sensitive sheet Dental Prescale (Fuji) and MBL using standardized radiographs of each mini-implant at the baseline and 5, 7, 10, and 15 months after surgery; the values were compared between groups. Two members of Group I failed to complete the study, decreasing the number of participants to 20. There was no relationship between the mBF and the MBL of the mini-implants (Spearman's rhor(s)=0.147; P=0.378). At the 15-month follow-up, the average mBF for Group I (ball) was 247.53 +/- 132.91 N and that of Group II (bar) only 203.23 +/- 76.85 N (Mann-Whitney test; P=0.586). The MBL values were also higher for Group I (1.40 +/- 1.02 mm) than Group II (0.84 +/- 0.66 mm) during the entire 15-month follow-up period (Mann-Whitney test; P=0.077). No relationship was found between mBF and MBL for patients wearing overdentures retained on mini-implants using bar or ball attachment systems.
    Clinical Oral Implants Research 02/2010; 21(2):243-9. · 3.43 Impact Factor
  • 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 01/2011; 47(2):124-130.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A plethora of attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures is currently available often without evidence-based support. Technical aspects are now parameters considered when choosing the appropriate attachment. Despite the increasing use of the Locator attachments, studies regarding their properties remain scarce. Peer reviewed articles published in English up to 2011, were identified through a MEDLINE search (Pubmed and Elsevier) and a hand search of relevant textbooks and annual publications. Emphasis was made on the technical complications as well as the loss of retention related to the attachments in implant-retained overdentures, primarily the Locator attachment. The evaluation of the long-term outcome of implant overdentures and complications associated with different attachment systems may provide useful guidelines for the clinician in selecting the type of attachment system and overdenture design.
    Saudi Dental Journal 04/2013; 25(2):53-60.


Available from
May 31, 2014