The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Comparison of the retentive characteristics of two additional attachment used with an implant bar attachment

임플란트 bar 어태치먼트에 사용하는 두 가지 부가적인 유지장 치의 유지력 특성 비교

  • Choi, Jae-Won (Research and Development Institute, PNUADD Co., Ltd.) ;
  • Chae, Sung-Ki (Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Research Institute, Institute of Translational Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Huh, Jung-Bo (Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Research Institute, Institute of Translational Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
  • 최재원 ((주)피엔유에드) ;
  • 채성기 (부산대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 허중보 (부산대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보철학교실)
  • Received : 2020.09.07
  • Accepted : 2021.02.09
  • Published : 2021.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the retentive characteristics of the additional attachments used with implant bar attachment under repeated insertion/removal cycles. Materials and methods: The newly developed attachment and the commercially available attachment were investigated: ADD-Lock (AL), Locator blue (LB). Two fixtures were placed parallel to each other on the custom lower mounting, and patrix of each attachment was fixed to the fixture. Also, the matrix of each attachment was placed on the opposing upper mounting. A universal testing machine was used to measure the retentive force during initial, 100, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, and 2500 repeated insertion/removal cycles. Wear and deformation of the attachment s were observed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Mann-Whitney U test (α=.05) and wilcoxon signed-rank test (α=.05) were performed to compare retentive force between each group and before and after 2500 repeated insertion/removal cycles. Results: In terms of initial retentive force and retentive force after 2500 repeated insertion/removal cycles, the AL group (15.24 ± 1.46 N and 9.74 ± 1.16 N) showed significantly smaller values than the LB group (43.53 ± 12.39 N and 22.99 ± 4.77 N) (P<.05). Also, in the loss of retentive force, the AL group (5.50 ± 1.08 N, 36.08%) showed a smaller value than the LB group (20.54 ± 11.89 N, 47.19%) (P<.05). Based on SEM analysis, The AL group showed noticeable wear and deformation in the patrix and the LB group in the matrix. Conclusion: Locator showed a higher initial retentive force than newly developed attachment, while the loss of retentive force was also higher. Both additional attachments are considered to have sufficient retentive force after repeated insertion/removal cycles.

목적: 본 연구는 반복적인 착탈에 따른 임플란트 bar 어태치먼트에 사용하는 두 가지 부가적인 유지장치의 유지력 특성을 평가해보고자 하였다. 재료 및 방법: 본 연구에서는 새롭게 개발된 유지장치(ADD-Lock; AL)와 기존의 상용화된 유지장치(Locator blue; LB)의 두 가지 유지장치를 평가하였다. 두 개의 고정체를 하부 구조물에 평행하게 위치시키고, 각 유지장치의 patrix를 고정체에 연결하였다. 각 유지장치의 matrix는 대합되는 상부 구조물에 위치시키고 고정하였다. Universal testing machine을 이용하여 초기, 100, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 2500회의 반복적인 착탈 동안에 각 유지장치의 유지력을 측정하였다. 유지장치의 마모 및 변형 정도는 주사전자현미경으로 관찰하였다. Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney U test (α = .05), 그리고 wilcoxon signed-rank test (α = .05)를 이용하여 통계분석 실시하였다. 결과: 초기 유지력과 2500회의 반복적인 착탈 후 유지력에서, AL군(15.24 ± 1.46 N, 9.74 ± 1.16 N)은 LB군(43.53 ± 12.39 N, 22.99 ± 4.77 N)보다 유의하게 작은 값을 보였다(P < .05). 또한, 유지력 소실량에 있어서도 AL군(5.50 ± 1.08 N, 36.08%)이 LB군(20.54 ± 11.89 N, 47.19%)에 비해 낮은 값을 보였다(P < .05). 주사전자현미경 분석 결과, AL군은 patrix에서, LB군은 matrix에서 눈에 띄는 마모 및 변형이 관찰되었다. 결론: Locator는 새롭게 개발된 유지장치보다 높은 초기 유지력을 보인 반면 높은 유지력 소실량을 보였다. 한편, 두 가지 부가적인 유지장치는 반복적인 착탈 후에도 충분한 유지력을 가지는 것으로 나타났다.

Keywords

References

  1. van Waas MA. The influence of clinical variables on patients' satisfaction with complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:307-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90202-N
  2. Yeo DH, Lim JH, Cho IH. A study on the changes in retention of clips used to retain implant-supported overdenture. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 1998;36:566-80.
  3. Thomason JM, Heydecke G, Feine JS, Ellis JS. How do patients perceive the benefit of reconstructive dentistry with regard to oral health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction? A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:168-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01461.x
  4. 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
  5. Zitzmann NU, Marinello CP. Treatment plan for restoring the edentulous maxilla with implant-supported restorations: removable overdenture versus fixed partial denture design. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:188-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70155-1
  6. Watson CJ, Tinsley D, Sharma S. Implant complications and failures: the complete overdenture. Dent Update 2001;28:234-8, 240. https://doi.org/10.12968/denu.2001.28.5.234
  7. van Kampen F, Cune M, van der Bilt A, Bosman F. Retention and postinsertion maintenance of barclip, ball and magnet attachments in mandibular implant overdenture treatment: an in vivo comparison after 3 months of function. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14:720-6. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0905-7161.2003.00961.x
  8. Bakke M, Holm B, Gotfredsen K. Masticatory function and patient satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures: a prospective 5-year study. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:575-81.
  9. Naert I, Gizani S, Vuylsteke M, van Steenberghe D. A 5-year randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants in the mandibular overdenture therapy. Part I: Peri-implant outcome. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:170-7. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1998.090304.x
  10. Walton JN, MacEntee MI, Glick N. One-year prosthetic outcomes with implant overdentures: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:391-8.
  11. Schneider AL, Kurtzman GM. Restoration of divergent free-standing implants in the maxilla. J Oral Implantol 2002;28:113-6. https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2002)028<0113:RODFII>2.3.CO;2
  12. Kurtzman GM. Lab techniques for use of the locator attachmentin bar-overdenture applications. Team-Work 2008;1:72-8.
  13. Kim MS, Yoon MJ, Huh JB, Jeon YC, Jeong CM. Implant overdenture using a locator bar system by drill and tapping technique in a mandible edentulous patient: a case report. J Adv Prosthodont 2012;4:116-20. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2012.4.2.116
  14. Chiu LPY, Vitale ND, Petridis H, McDonald A. The Effect of Different Water Temperatures on Retention Loss and Material Degradation of Locator Attachments. J Prosthodont 2017;26:537-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12440
  15. Choi JW, Bae JH, Jeong CM, Huh JB. Retention and wear behaviors of two implant overdenture studtype attachments at different implant angulations. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:628-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.027
  16. Choi JW, Choi KH, Chae HJ, Chae SK, Bae EB, Lee JJ, Lee SH, Jeong CM, Huh JB. Load-bearing capacity and retention of newly developed micro-locking implant prosthetic system: An in vitro pilot study. Materials (Basel) 2018;11:564. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11040564
  17. Choi JW, Lee JJ, Bae EB, Huh JB. Implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis with a microlocking implant prosthetic system: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123:15-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.11.021
  18. Choi JW, Song CH, Huh JB: Implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with new retention type using zirconia ball and nickel-titanium spring. Implantology 2019;23:16-24. https://doi.org/10.32542/implantology.2019002
  19. Oh SC, Han JS, Kim MJ. Implant supported overdenture using milled titanium bar with locator(R) attachment on fully edentulous maxillae : A case report. J Dent Rehab Appl Sci 2011;27:223-31.
  20. Son CY, Jeong CM, Jeon YC, Lim JS, Jeong HC. Comparative studies of retentive forces in maxillary overdenture bar attachments. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2005;43:650-61.
  21. Michelinakis G, Barclay CW, Smith PW. The influence of interimplant distance and attachment type on the retention characteristics of mandibular overdentures on 2 implants: initial retention values. Int J Prosthodont 2006;19:507-12.
  22. ELsyad MA, Dayekh MA, Khalifa AK. Locator versus bar attachment effect on the retention and stability of implant-retained maxillary overdenture: An in vitro study. J Prosthodont 2019;28:e627-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12608
  23. Pigozzo MN, Mesquita MF, Henriques GE, Vaz LG. The service life of implant-retained overdenture attachment systems. J Prosthet Dent 2009;102:74-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60112-8
  24. Burns DR, Unger JW, Elswick RK Jr, Beck DA. Prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures: Part I-Retention, stability, and tissue response. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73:354-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80331-2
  25. Naert I, Gizani S, Vuylsteke M, Van Steenberghe D. A 5-year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26:195-202. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1999.00369.x
  26. Gonuldas F, Tokar E, Ozturk C. Evaluation of the retention characteristics of various stud attachment systems for implant retained overdenture. Acta Bioeng Biomech 2018;20:135-41.
  27. Srinivasan M, Schimmel M, Badoud I, Ammann P, Herrmann FR, Muller F. Influence of implant angulation and cyclic dislodging on the retentive force of two different overdenture attachments - an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:604-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12643
  28. Kim SM, Choi JW, Jeon YC, Jeong CM, Yun MJ, Lee SH, Huh JB. Comparison of changes in retentive force of three stud attachments for implant overdentures. J Adv Prosthodont 2015;7:303-11. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2015.7.4.303
  29. Williams BH, Ochiai KT, Hojo S, Nishimura R, Caputo AA. Retention of maxillary implant overdenture bars of different designs. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:603-7. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.120838