• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.153-162
• /
• 2013

This study compared the marginal bone loss around dental implants that were placed in the canine areas of the mandibles and finded the survival rate of the implants, marginal bone loss around implants and prosthetic complications in 20 patients treated with overdentures retained with Locator attachments. Implants placed in this study showed a 95% survival rate and the average marginal bone loss was 1.21 mm($SD{\pm}0.60mm$) in 94.3 weeks of functional loading. Implant-retained overdentures had various prosthetic complications such as male change, metal cap loosening, Locator attachment loosening, denture teeth change, relining and denture fracture. Implant-retained overdentures using two implants and Locator attachments in the edentulous mandibles is considered as a stable way for long terms because of minimal invasive operation, simple prosthetic process and easy repair.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.53 no.3
• /
• pp.194-206
• /
• 2023

Purpose: A novel attachment system for implant-retained overdentures (IRODs) with novel material combinations for improved mechanical resilience and prosthodontic success (Novaloc) has been recently introduced as an alternative to an existing system (Locator). This study investigated whether differences between the Novaloc and Locator attachment systems translate into differences in implant survival, implant success, and patient-centered outcomes when applied in a real-world in-practice comparative setting in patients restored with mandibular IRODs supported by 2 interforaminal implants (2-IRODs). Methods: This prospective, intra-subject crossover comparison compared 20 patients who received 2 intra-foraminal bone level tapered implants restored with full acrylic overdentures using either the Locator or Novaloc attachment system. After 6 months of function, the attachment in the corresponding dentures was switched, and the definitive attachment system type was delivered based on the patient's preference after 12 months. For the definitive attachment system, implant survival was evaluated after 24 months. The primary outcomes of this study were oral health-related quality of life and patient preferences related to prosthetic and implant survival. Secondary outcomes included implant survival rate and success, prosthetic survival, perceived general health, and patient satisfaction. Results: Patient-centered outcomes and patient preferences between attachment systems were comparable, with relatively high overall patient satisfaction levels for both attachment systems. No difference in the prosthetic survival rate between study groups was detected. The implant survival rate over the follow-up period after 24 months in both groups was 100%. Conclusions: The results of this in-practice comparison indicate that both attachment systems represent comparable candidates for the prosthodontic retention of 2-IRODs. Both systems showed high rates of patient satisfaction and implant survival. The influence of material combinations of the retentive system on treatment outcomes between the tested systems remains inconclusive and requires further investigations.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.176-183
• /
• 2014

Severely absorbed edentulous ridge cannot bear mechanical stress, causes undesired transformation of oral environment and makes patients difficult to adapt to dentures. Nowadays implant overdenture can be a treatment of choice in order to relieve patients' discomfort and improve stability and retention of the denture. Placement of implant on maxilla is difficult because of its bone quality and anatomic structure. It also has wide supportive tissue and convenience of border sealing, which provides sufficient support and stabilization with conventional complete denture. Mandible, on the other hand, is difficult to obtain sufficient support, retention and stabilization with conventional complete denture. Therefore, implant overdenture is recommended on mandible. Locator attachment has been improved for convenience of use and male parts of various retention enabled it to replace ball type attachment clinically. In this study, we restored maxillary arch with conventional denture, and mandibular arch with implant and tissue-supported overdenture and Locator attachment system.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.53 no.3
• /
• pp.207-214
• /
• 2015

Due to the limitations of conventional removable partial denture prostheses to treat a cleft lip & palate patient who shows scar tissue on upper lip, excessive absorption of the maxillary residual alveolar ridge, and class III malocclusion with narrow palate and undergrowth of the maxilla, 4 implants were placed on the maxillary edentulous region and a maxillary removable implant-supported partial denture was planned using a CAD/CAM milled titanium bar. Unlike metal or gold casting technique which has shrinkage after the molding, CAD/CAM milled titanium bar is highly-precise, economical and lightweight. In practice, however, it is very hard to obtain accurate friction-fit from the milled bar and reduction in retention can occur due to repetitive insertion and removal of the denture. Various auxiliary retention systems (e.g. $ERA^{(R)}$, $CEKA^{(R)}$, magnetics, $Locator^{(R)}$ attachment), in order to deal with these problems, can be used to obtain additional retention, cost-effectiveness and ease of replacement. Out of diverse auxiliary attachments, $Locator^{(R)}$ has characteristics that are dual retentive, minimal in vertical height and convenient of attachment replacement. Drill and tapping method is simple and the replacement of the metal female part of $Locator^{(R)}$ attachment is convenient. In this case, the $Locator^{(R)}$ attachment is connected to the milled titanium bar fabricated by CAD/CAM, using the drill and tapping technique. Afterward, screw holes were formed and 3 $Locator^{(R)}$ attachments were secured with 20 Ncm holding force for additional retention. Following this procedure, satisfactory results were obtained in terms of aesthetic facial form, masticatory function and denture retention, and I hereby report this case.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.56 no.4
• /
• pp.368-374
• /
• 2018

In this case, the patient was restored with gold Hader bar mandibular implant overdenture using two implants about 10 years ago, and the retentive force was lost due to severe wear of the bar due to 3.5 years use. The overdenture was repaired using a Locator attachment, but the male part was completely worn after 6.5 years use. Finally, we used a hybrid telescopic double crown with a friction pin to fabricate a new implant overdenture, which was observed for 2 years and showed excellent prognosis. So, we describe the cause of failure of each attachment (Gold Hader bar, Locator) in two implant overdentures and report on the advantages and disadvantages of double crown implant overdenture and the conditions for success.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.55-62
• /
• 2017

Overdenture using dental implants could improve the problems of conventional complete denture function which are pain during mastication, insufficient retention and stability. Locator attachment used widely for implant-retained overdenture has advantages that it needs the smallest vertical space and also its nylon male cap allows personalized retention for each case. However its retention force decreases rapidly with function rather than the bar and ball attachment. So, implant fixture should be positioned as parallel as possible.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.51 no.2
• /
• pp.113-118
• /
• 2013

When losing many of the remaining teeth, the relation among them can be put into dynamically unfavorable situation. In the case that the patient without any incompatibilityto the denture, overdenture can be considered. Moreover, we can overcome the dynamical disadvantage, and improve the support, stability, and retention of the partial denture by using implant at the edentulous area. In this case, patient with crossed occlusion between few remaining teeth was treated with maxillary and mandibular partial denture. Single implant fixture was placed at the edentulous space, opposing to the maxillary teeth occluded, and $Locator^{(R)}$ attachment was connected. The patient's esthetic satisfaction was improved by ideally adjusting the tilted occlusal plane. Since the patient was satisfied both esthetically and functionally, and maintained stable during the clinical observation for 6 months after the treatment, we would like to report about it.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.9 no.5
• /
• pp.371-380
• /
• 2017

PURPOSE. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the stress distribution in Locator attachments in mandibular two-implant overdentures according to implant locations and different loading conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Four three-dimensional finite element models were created, simulating two osseointegrated implants in the mandible to support two Locator attachments and an overdenture. The models simulated an overdenture with implants located in the position of the level of lateral incisors, canines, second premolars, and crossed implant. A 150 N vertical unilateral and bilateral load was applied at different locations and 40 N was also applied when combined with anterior load at the midline. Data for von Mises stresses in the abutment (matrix) of the attachment and the plastic insert (patrix) of the attachment were produced numerically, color-coded, and compared between the models for attachments and loading conditions. RESULTS. Regardless of the load, the greatest stress values were recorded in the overdenture attachments with implants at lateral incisor locations. In all models and load conditions, the attachment abutment (matrix) withstood a much greater stress than the insert plastic (patrix). Regardless of the model, when a unilateral load was applied, the load side Locator attachments recorded a much higher stress compared to the contralateral side. However, with load bilateral posterior alone or combined at midline load, the stress distribution was more symmetrical. The stress is distributed primarily in the occlusal and lateral surface of the insert plastic patrix and threadless area of the abutment (matrix). CONCLUSION. The overdenture model with lateral incisor level implants is the worst design in terms of biomechanical environment for the attachment components. The bilateral load in general favors a more uniform stress distribution in both attachments compared to a much greater stress registered with unilateral load in the load side attachments. Regardless of the implant positions and the occlusal load application site, the stress transferred to the insert plastic is much lower than that registered in the abutment.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.54 no.7
• /
• pp.513-520
• /
• 2016

In crossed occlusion, displacement of removable partial denture is likely to occur during function due to different characteristics of abutment and supporting tissue. It increases discomfort to the patient. In addition, adverse effect on the residual ridge and abutment can induce an unfavorable prognosis of the denture. In this case, a small number of implants can be placed in strategic locations. Attachment can be added for additional support and retention of removable partial denture assisted by implants. This article describes the rehabilitation of a crossed occlusion patient using implant-assisted removable partial denture with Locator$^{(R)}$ attachment. After 24 months, the patient was satisfied with the aesthetic and function of the prosthesis that is maintained stable.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.351-359
• /
• 2008

It is difficult to provide prosthodontic treatment to fully edentulous patients with severe alveolar bone resorption, because this makes patents hard to endure functional load, and to adapt to the dentures, which result in emotional stress to patients. Implant supported overdenture can be chosen to solve these problems. Among several types of them, the implant retained and tissue supported overdenture, is available to the patients of low masticatory force with the reduced cost. Attachments also can be used for increasing retention and esthetics in dentures. Especially, $Locator^{(R)}$ system needs a small vertical interarch space for restoration and is able to compensate the difference of angle between fixtures. In this study, we restored maxilla with conventional complete denture, and mandible with implant and tissue supported overdenture and $Locator^{(R)}$ system.