The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of abutment angulation in the retention and durability of three overdenture attachment systems: An in vitro study

  • Aroso, Carlos (Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Instituto Universitario de Ciencias da Saude (IUCS)) ;
  • Silva, Antonio Sergio (Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Instituto Universitario de Ciencias da Saude (IUCS)) ;
  • Ustrell, Raul (Industrial Engineer, Chairman of Idearum, Enginyeria i Innovacio de Producte) ;
  • Mendes, Jose Manuel (Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Instituto Universitario de Ciencias da Saude (IUCS)) ;
  • Braga, Ana Cristina (Department of Production and Systems Engineering, University of Minho (UM)) ;
  • Berastegui, Esther (Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Odontology, University of Barcelona) ;
  • Escuin, Tomas (Department of Rehabilitation and Maxillofacial Prostheses, Faculty of Odontology, University of Barcelona)
  • Received : 2015.08.01
  • Accepted : 2015.12.14
  • Published : 2016.02.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This in vitro study investigated and compared the durability and retention of three types of attachments. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three commercially available attachments were investigated: $Clix^{(R)}$, Dalbo-$Plus^{(R)}$ and $Locator^{(R)}$. In total, 72 samples of these attachments were placed in the acrylic resin forms and subjected to mechanical testing (5400 cycles of insertion and removal) over the respective ball or Locator abutments immersed in artificial saliva at pH 7 and $37^{\circ}C$. The abutments were placed at angulations of $0^{\circ}$, $10^{\circ}$ and $20^{\circ}$. The retention force was recorded at the beginning and after 540, 1080, 2160, 3240, 4320 and 5400 insertion-removal cycles. RESULTS. The results revealed that there were significant differences in the average values of the insertion/removal force due to angulation ($F_{(2.48)}=343619$, P<.05) and the type of attachment ($F_{(7.48)}=23.220$, P<.05). CONCLUSION. Greater angulation of the abutments was found to influence the retention capacity of the attachments, and the fatigue test simulating 5 years of denture insertion and removal did not produce wear in the metal abutments.

Keywords

References

  1. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, Head T, Lund JP, MacEntee M, Mericske-Stern R, Mojon P, Morais J, Naert I, Payne AG, Penrod J, Stoker GT, Tawse-Smith A, Taylor TD, Thomason JM, Thomson WM, Wismeijer D. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Montreal, Quebec, May 24-25, 2002. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:601-2.
  2. British Society for the Study of Prosthetic Dentistry. The York consensus statement on implant-supported overdentures. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2009;17:164-5.
  3. Tallgren A. The continuing reduction of the residual alveolar ridges in complete denture wearers: a mixed-longitudinal study covering 25 years. 1972. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:427-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00158-6
  4. de Jong MH, Wright PS, Meijer HJ, Tymstra N. Posterior mandibular residual ridge resorption in patients with overdentures supported by two or four endosseous implants in a 10-year prospective comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:1168-74.
  5. Kobayashi M, Srinivasan M, Ammann P, Perriard J, Ohkubo C, Muller F, Belser UC, Schimmel M. Effects of in vitro cyclic dislodging on retentive force and removal torque of three overdenture attachment systems. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:426-34.
  6. Tabatabaian F, Saboury A, Sobhani ZS, Petropoulos VC. The effect of inter-implant distance on retention and resistance to dislodging forces for mandibular implant-tissue-supported overdentures. J Dent (Tehran) 2014;11:506-15.
  7. Silva AS, Aroso C, Ustrell R, Braga AC, Mendes JM, Escuin T. The influence of saliva pH value on the retention and durability of bar-clip attachments. J Adv Prosthodont 2015;7: 32-8. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2015.7.1.32
  8. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007;39: 175-91. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
  9. Branchi R, Vangi D, Virga A, Guertin G, Fazi G. Resistance to wear of four matrices with ball attachments for implant overdentures: a fatigue study. J Prosthodont 2010;19:614-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2010.00613.x
  10. Botega DM, Mesquita MF, Henriques GE, Vaz LG. Retention force and fatigue strength of overdenture attachment systems. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:884-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01308.x
  11. Queiroz GM, Silva LF, Ferreira JT, Gomes JA, Sathler L. Electrochemical behavior and pH stability of artificial salivas for corrosion tests. Braz Oral Res 2007;21:209-15. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242007000300004
  12. Stuttgen U. Effect of saliva smears in experimental wear studies on precious and non-precious metal casting alloys. Zahntechnik (Zur) 1985;43:466-8, 470-1.
  13. Caldwell RC. Adhesion of foods to teeth. J Dent Res 1962; 41:821-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345620410041401
  14. Setz I, Lee SH, Engel E. Retention of prefabricated attachments for implant stabilized overdentures in the edentulous mandible: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:323-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70133-7
  15. Walmsley AD. Magnetic retention in prosthetic dentistry. Dent Update 2002;29:428-33. https://doi.org/10.12968/denu.2002.29.9.428
  16. Walmsley AD, Frame JW. Implant supported overdenturesthe Birmingham experience. J Dent 1997;25:S43-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(97)87700-7
  17. Cohen BI, Pagnillo M, Condos S, Deutsch AS. Comparative study of two precision overdenture attachment designs. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:145-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90298-X
  18. Trakas T, Michalakis K, Kang K, Hirayama H. Attachment systems for implant retained overdentures: a literature review. Implant Dent 2006;15:24-34. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.id.0000202419.21665.36
  19. Ortegon SM, Thompson GA, Agar JR, Taylor TD, Perdikis D. Retention forces of spherical attachments as a function of implant and matrix angulation in mandibular overdentures: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2009;101:231-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60045-7
  20. Bayer S, Steinheuser D, Gruner M, Keilig L, Enkling N, Stark H, Mues S. Comparative study of four retentive anchor systems for implant supported overdentures-retention force changes. Gerodontology 2009;26:268-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-2358.2009.00286.x
  21. Fakhry A, Tan SC, Heiner AD, Dehkordi-Vakil FH, Dircks HW. Methodology for measuring the in vitro seating and unseating forces of prefabricated attachment systems used to retain implant overdentures. J Prosthodont 2010;19:87-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00525.x
  22. Rutkunas V, Mizutani H, Takahashi H, Iwasaki N. Wear simulation effects on overdenture stud attachments. Dent Mater J 2011;30:845-53. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2011-057
  23. Chen IC, Brudvik JS, Mancl LA, Rubenstein JE, Chitswe K, Raigrodski AJ. Freedom of rotation of selected overdenture attachments: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2011;106:78-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60099-1
  24. Al-Ghafli SA, Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Kang K. The in vitro effect of different implant angulations and cyclic dislodgement on the retentive properties of an overdenture attachment system. J Prosthet Dent 2009;102:140-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60134-7
  25. Kleis WK, Kammerer PW, Hartmann S, Al-Nawas B, Wagner W. A comparison of three different attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: one-year report. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12:209-18.
  26. Alsabeeha N, Atieh M, Swain MV, Payne AG. Attachment systems for mandibular single-implant overdentures: an in vitro retention force investigation on different designs. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:160-6.
  27. Lehmann KM, Arnim FV. Studies on the retention capability of push-button attachments. SSO Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnheilkd 1976;86:521-30.
  28. Petropoulos VC, Mante FK. Comparison of retention and strain energies of stud attachments for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont 2011;20:286-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00699.x
  29. Petropoulos VC, Rashedi B. Current concepts and techniques in complete denture final impression procedures. J Prosthodont 2003;12:280-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1059-941X(03)00108-6
  30. Petropoulos VC, Smith W. Maximum dislodging forces of implant overdenture stud attachments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:526-35.
  31. Petropoulos VC, Smith W, Kousvelari E. Comparison of retention and release periods for implant overdenture attachments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:176-85.
  32. Uludag B, Polat S, Sahin V, Comut AA. Effects of implant angulations and attachment configurations on the retentive forces of locator attachment-retained overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:1053-7. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3401
  33. Turk PE, Geckili O, Turk Y, Gunay V, Bilgin T. In vitro comparison of the retentive properties of ball and locator attachments for implant overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:1106-13. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3621

Cited by

  1. Effect of Simulated Mastication on the Retention of Locator Attachments for Implant-Supported Overdentures: An In Vitro Pilot Study pp.1059941X, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12670
  2. In Vitro Effect of Mastication on the Retention and Wear of Locator Attachments in a Flat Mandibular Ridge Model pp.1059941X, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12940
  3. Effects of Excessive Implant Angulation on Retention of Two Types of Overdenture Attachments during Cyclic Loading vol.19, pp.10, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2408
  4. Five‐year study of mandibular overdentures on stud abutments: Clinical outcome, patient satisfaction and prosthetic maintenance—Influence of bone resorption and implant position vol.30, pp.9, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13501
  5. Ball versus Locator® Attachments: A Retrospective Study on Prosthetic Maintenance and Effect on Oral-Health-Related Quality of Life vol.14, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14041051
  6. Biomechanical Aspects of Various Attachments for Implant Overdentures: A Review vol.13, pp.19, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13193248