An in Vitro Comparative Study to Evaluate the Retention of Different Attachment Systems Used in Implant-retained Overdentures

Overview

Journal J Indian Prosthodont Soc

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2016 May 4

PMID 27141166

Citations 15

Authors

Tejomaya Shastry

N M Anupama

Shilpa Shetty

M Nalinakshamma

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the change in the retentive force and removal torque of three attachment systems during simulation of insertion-removal cycles.

Methodology: Edentulous mandibular models were made with heat-cured polymethyl methacrylate resin. Two implant replicas (CMI), of 3.75 mm diameter and 10 mm length, were placed in the intraforaminal region. Acrylic resin mandibular overdentures were fabricated and provision was made to receive three different overdenture attachment systems, prefabricated ball/o-ring attachment (Lifecare Biosystems, Thane, India), Hader bar and clip attachment (Sterngold, Attleboro, MA), and Locator(®) implant overdenture attachment stud type (Zest Anchors LLC, USA). Using a universal testing machine, each of the models were subjected to 100 pulls each to dislodge the overdenture from the acrylic model, and the force values as indicated on the digital indicator were tabulated both before and after thermocycling (AT).

Statistical Analysis Used: Statistical analysis comprised Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Friedman test, and Wilcoxon signed ranks test.

Results: The statistical model revealed a significantly different behavior of the attachment systems both before and AT. The ball/o-ring and bar attachments developed higher retentive force as compared to the locator attachment. The bar and clip attachment exhibited the highest peak as well as the highest mean retention force at the end of the study. The Locator(®) attachment showed a decrease in retentive potential after an early peak.

Conclusions And Clinical Implications: The ball/o-ring and bar and clip attachments exhibit higher retentive capacities than the Locator(®) attachment over time.

Citing Articles

Retention of Ti Si snap versus locator attachments with retention sil in two-implant retained mandibular overdentures: an in vitro study.

Mourad D, El-Mahrouky N, El-Dayem M, Shawky Y BMC Oral Health. 2025; 25(1):318.

PMID: 40022043 PMC: 11869697. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-025-05625-y.

A 28-Year-Old Woman with Down Syndrome, Congenital Heart Disease, and a History of Knee Surgery and Plantar Fasciitis, with Hallux Abducto Valgus (Bunion) and Lapiplasty Three-Dimensional Correction Surgery.

Simon-Perez E, Jimenez-Martin R, Cicchinelli L, Fernandez Yague J, Simon-Perez C, Paez-Moguer J Am J Case Rep. 2023; 24:e940879.

PMID: 38091276 PMC: 10728881. DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.940879.

Retention force of Molloplast-B with ball attachment in implant-supported overdentures: An study.

Salloum A, Alassafeen A, Kassis J J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2022; 22(3):268-271.

PMID: 36511057 PMC: 9416963. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_43_22.

The effect of ball versus locator attachment system on the performance of implant supported overdenture: A systematic review.

Gupta N, Bansal R, Shukla N J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2022; 13(1):44-55.

PMID: 36406295 PMC: 9673099. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2022.11.001.

Comparison of Retention of Two Different Attachment Systems Used in Implant-Supported Overdentures.

Dhamodaran S, Ahmed S, Nandini V, Marimuthu R, Ramadoss S J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2022; 14(Suppl 1):S605-S610.

PMID: 36110775 PMC: 9469436. DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_733_21.

References

Rutkunas V, Mizutani H, Takahashi H, Iwasaki N . Wear simulation effects on overdenture stud attachments. Dent Mater J. 2011; 30(6):845-53. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2011-057. View

Bayer S, Keilig L, Kraus D, Gruner M, Stark H, Mues S . Influence of the lubricant and the alloy on the wear behaviour of attachments. Gerodontology. 2010; 28(3):221-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2009.00352.x. View

Buttel A, Buhler N, Marinello C . [Locator or ball attachment: a guide for clinical decision making]. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2009; 119(9):901-18. View

Taylor T, Belser U . Management of the edentulous patient. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 11 Suppl 1:108-25. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011s1108.x. View

Sadowsky S . Mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent. 2001; 86(5):468-73. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2001.119921. View

Chung K, Chung C, Cagna D, Cronin Jr R . Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont. 2004; 13(4):221-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04042.x. View

Karabuda C, Yaltirik M, Bayraktar M . A clinical comparison of prosthetic complications of implant-supported overdentures with different attachment systems. Implant Dent. 2008; 17(1):74-81. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e318166d88b. View

Cune M, van Kampen F, van der Bilt A, Bosman F . Patient satisfaction and preference with magnet, bar-clip, and ball-socket retained mandibular implant overdentures: a cross-over clinical trial. Int J Prosthodont. 2005; 18(2):99-105. View

Heckmann S, Heussinger S, Linke J, Graef F, Proschel P . Improvement and long-term stability of neuromuscular adaptation in implant-supported overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20(11):1200-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01722.x. View

10.

Cakarer S, Can T, Yaltirik M, Keskin C . Complications associated with the ball, bar and Locator attachments for implant-supported overdentures. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2011; 16(7):e953-9. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.17312. View

11.

Thomason J, Feine J, Exley C, Moynihan P, Muller F, Naert I . Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients--the York Consensus Statement. Br Dent J. 2009; 207(4):185-6. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.728. View

12.

Allen P, McMillan A, Walshaw D . A patient-based assessment of implant-stabilized and conventional complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 2001; 85(2):141-7. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2001.113214. View

13.

Kleis W, Kammerer P, 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. 2009; 12(3):209-18. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00154.x. View

14.

Muller F, Heath M, Ott R . Maximum bite force after the replacement of complete dentures. Gerodontology. 2002; 18(1):58-62. DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2001.00058.x. View

15.

Yang T, Maeda Y, Gonda T, Kotecha S . Attachment systems for implant overdenture: influence of implant inclination on retentive and lateral forces. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; 22(11):1315-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02137.x. View

16.

Payne A, Solomons Y . Mandibular implant-supported overdentures: a prospective evaluation of the burden of prosthodontic maintenance with 3 different attachment systems. Int J Prosthodont. 2001; 13(3):246-53. View

17.

Trakas T, Michalakis K, Kang K, Hirayama H . Attachment systems for implant retained overdentures: a literature review. Implant Dent. 2006; 15(1):24-34. DOI: 10.1097/01.id.0000202419.21665.36. View

18.

Rutkunas V, Mizutani H, Takahashi H . Evaluation of stable retentive properties of overdenture attachments. Stomatologija. 2006; 7(4):115-20. View

19.

Carlsson G, Omar R . The future of complete dentures in oral rehabilitation. A critical review. J Oral Rehabil. 2009; 37(2):143-56. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.02039.x. View

20.

Muller F, Hernandez M, Grutter L, Aracil-Kessler L, Weingart D, Schimmel M . Masseter muscle thickness, chewing efficiency and bite force in edentulous patients with fixed and removable implant-supported prostheses: a cross-sectional multicenter study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; 23(2):144-150. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02213.x. View