• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.313-320
• /
• 2016

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical findings and patient satisfaction on implant overdenture designed with Locator implant attachment or Locator bar attachment in mandibular edentulous patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, probing depth, peri-implant inflammation, bleeding, plaque, calculus, complications, and satisfaction were evaluated on sixteen patients who were treated with mandibular overdenture and have used it for at least 1 year (Locator implant attachment: n=8, Locator bar attachment: n=8). RESULTS. Marginal bone loss, probing depth, plaque index of the Locator bar attachment group were significantly lower than the Locator implant attachment group (P<.05). There was no significant difference on bleeding, peri-implant inflammation, and patient satisfaction between the two denture types (P>.05). The replacement of the attachment components was the most common complication in both groups. Although there was no correlation between marginal bone loss and plaque index, a significant correlation was found between marginal bone loss and probing depth. CONCLUSION. The Locator bar attachment group indicates lesser marginal bone loss and need for maintenance, as compared with the Locator implant attachment group. This may be due to the splinting effect among implants rather than the types of Locator attachment.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.58 no.4
• /
• pp.335-341
• /
• 2020

Severe mandibular bone resorption may cause difficulties in using a complete denture. An implant overdenture is a feasible and economical treatment option as it can improve retention, stability, and support. A Locator attachment has used successfully. Recently, the next generation of the Locator attachment launched. The purpose of this article is to describe the fabrication of an implant overdenture with a Locator R-Tx attachment as well as its features.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.54 no.12
• /
• pp.1024-1034
• /
• 2016

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to compare the type and frequency of prosthetic complications associated with attachment types for implant overdenture. Material and methods. In this retrospective study, 38 patients (mean age, 63.5 years) have been treated with implant overdentures from 2007 to 2014. Ten patients received a bar-clip attachment. Eleven patients had received a milled bar with Locator attachment. Seventeen patients had received a Locator attachment. The mean follow-up period was 36.9 months (range, 15-83 months). The type and frequency of prosthetic complications was recorded. The frequency was analyzed to determine the statistical difference among the 3 different attachments by using one-way ANOVA (${\alpha}=.05$) and Bonferroni post hoc method at a 5% level of significance. Results. The total number of prosthetic complications was higher in the bar-clip attachment (55 events) than in the milled bar with Locator attachment (39 events) and the Locator attachment (34 events). There were no statistically significant differences, and the most common prosthetic complication was the loss of retention. In the bar-clip attachment group, the average frequency of prosthetic complications was 3.0 events per prosthesis during the first year. In the milled bar with Locator attachment and Locator attachment groups, the average frequencies were 1.45 events and 2.35 events, respectively. Statistically significant differences were observed in the frequency of the complication. (p = .043) Conclusions. Compared to the bar-clip attachment, implant overdentures that use milled bars with the Locator attachment have a significantly lower incidence of prosthetic complications in the first year of follow-up after placement.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.127-140
• /
• 2013

The Locator attachment is used widely for implant retained overdenture. It can be used solitary and needs small vertical space. Locator can be applicable for parallel implants and divergent implants. Nylon male cap allow personalized retention for each case. In this literature review, initial retention force and changes in retention force of various attachments were evaluated. Rotation freedom and stress distribution around the attachment were reviewed. Moreover, patient satisfaction and maintenance care of Locator attachment were described. From all of the researches, it was drawn that Locator attachment can be used successfully and widely in several clinical situations.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.199-206
• /
• 2017

If maintaining oral few retained root when planning the removable prosthesis, it is possible to obtain a more comfortable and functional result. In this case report, 'Locator Root Attachment' was used to maxillary removable overdenture in patients with a few teeth and retained root. A functionally proper clinical result from attachment after clinical and radiographic analysis was observed in this case.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.223-231
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this case report is to introduce new attachment system(milled titanium bar with $Locator^{(R)}$ attachment) for implant supported overdenture in maxillary edentulous patients. A 56-years-old male patient visited the hospital due to the mobility of his maxillary fixed partial dentures(10-unit bridge). Including temporomandibular joint(TMJ), there was no specific PMHs to influence dental treatment. In radiographic and clinical evaluation, there was a severe bone resorption and mobility in maxillary teeth. Accordingly all the remaining maxillary teeth was extracted and fabrication of implant supported overdenture was planned. The milled titanium bar with $Locator^{(R)}$ was designed as an attachment system, considering the stability and retention of denture, masticatory efficiency, oral hygiene care, esthetics, pronunciation, and patient's financial state. The milled titanium bar was manufactured using CAD/CAM technology, and $Locator^{(R)}$ attachment connected to the bar by tap & drill method. For over 1-year, in terms of function and esthetics, satisfactory result was obtained.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.397-406
• /
• 2012

Loss of tooth results in remodeling and resorption of surrounding alveolar bone which causes atrophic edentulous ridge and gradually decreasing gingival attachment. As a result, edentulous patients face difficulty in using dentures due to pain, decrease of support, decline of masticatory efficiency of complete denture. To improve this, overdenture with implant in the mandible and attachment are considered as a treatment of choice as a favorable treatment. In this case, a patient with edentulous ridge for long period is rehabilitated by complete denture in maxilla and implant overdenture using Locator$^{(R)}$ attachment in mandible.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.12-21
• /
• 2022

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to investigate changes in retention and wear pattern of Locator^® and ADD-TOC attachments on a digital milled bar by performing chewing simulation and repeated insertion/removal of prostheses in fully edentulous models. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Locator (Locator^®; Zest Anchors Inc., Escondido, CA, USA) was selected as the control group and ADD-TOC (ADD-TOC; PNUAdd Co., Ltd., Busan, Republic of Korea) as the experimental group. A CAD-CAM milled bar was mounted on a master model and 3 threaded holes for connecting a bar attachment was formed using a tap. Locator and ADD-TOC attachments were then attached to the milled bar. Simulated mastication and repeated insertion/removal were performed over 400,000 cyclic loadings and 1,080 insertions/removals, respectively. Wear patterns on deformed attachment were investigated by field emission scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS. For the ADD-TOC attachments, chewing simulation and repeated insertion/removal resulted in a mean initial retentive force of 24.43 ± 4.89 N, which were significantly lower than that of the Locator attachment, 34.33 ± 8.25 N (P < .05). Amounts of retention loss relative to baseline for the Locator and ADD-TOC attachments were 21.74 ± 7.07 and 8.98 ± 5.76 N (P < .05). CONCLUSION. CAD-CAM milled bar with the ADD-TOC attachment had a lower initial retentive force than the Locator attachment. However, the ADD-TOC attachment might be suitable for long-term use as it showed less deformation and had a higher retentive force after simulated mastication and insertion/removal repetitions.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.64-70
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this case report is to introduce milled titanium bar with Locator$^{(R)}$ that made by CAD/CAM for implant supported overdenture in maxillary edentulous patients. For over 2 years, in terms of function and esthetics, satisfactory result was obtained.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.9 no.3
• /
• pp.143-151
• /
• 2017

PURPOSE. The design of the attachment must provide an optimum stress distribution around the implant. In this study, for implant overdentures with a bar/clip attachment or a locator attachment, the stress transmitted to the implant in accordance with the change in the denture base length and the vertical pressure was measured and analyzed. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Test model was created with epoxy resin. The strain gauges made a tight contact with implant surfaces. A universal testing machine was used to exert a vertical pressure on the mandibular implant overdenture and the strain rate of the implants was measured. RESULTS. Means and standard deviations of the maximum micro-deformation rates were determined. 1) Locator attachment: The implants on the working side generally showed higher strain than those on the non-working side. Tensile force was observed on the mesial surface of the implant on the working side, and the compressive force was applied to the buccal surface and on the surfaces of the implant on the non-working side. 2) Bar/clip attachment: The implants on the both non-working and working sides showed high strain; all surfaces except the mesial surface of the implant on the non-working side showed a compressive force. CONCLUSION. To minimize the strain on implants in mandibular implant overdentures, the attachment of the implant should be carefully selected and the denture base should be extended as much as possible.