Ball Versus Locator Attachments: A Retrospective Study on Prosthetic Maintenance and Effect on Oral-Health-Related Quality of Life

Overview

Journal Materials (Basel)

Publisher MDPI

Date 2021 Mar 6

PMID 33672382

Citations 5

Authors

Silvia Brandt

Hans-Christoph Lauer

Michael Fehrenz

Jan-Frederik Guth

Georgios Romanos

Anna Winter

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Locator and ball attachments are well-established systems to attach overdentures to two inter-foraminal implants. This study aimed to evaluate differences between the two systems regarding prosthetic maintenance and patients' oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). Dental records of patients with a mandibular implant-retained overdenture were retrospectively analyzed. Prosthetic maintenance measures involving the denture suprastructure and attachment matrix and patrix were analyzed. Furthermore, the Oral Health Impact Profile-G14 (OHIP-G14) was used to evaluate OHRQoL. Results were analyzed by means of Kaplan-Meier analysis and Student's - and log-rank tests. The records of 122 patients were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed a significant difference between ball attachments (Group B; patients = 47) and Locator attachments (Group L; patients = 75) regarding the occurrence of denture fractures ( < 0.001) and events affecting the matrix ( = 0.028) and patrix ( = 0.030). Group L had a significantly lower total OHIP-G14 score than Group B ( = 0.002). The most common maintenance events were matrix-related and denture relining for both attachment systems. Group B required more maintenance measures than Group L. Moreover, patients in Group L had better OHRQoL than patients in Group B.

Citing Articles

Stress Distribution Pattern in Mandibular Overdenture Designs Supported by Three Dental Implants: A 3D Finite Element Analysis.

Aminianpour N, Alikhasi M, Kasari M, Yousefi H, Siadat H Clin Exp Dent Res. 2025; 11(1):e70060.

PMID: 40025660 PMC: 11872805. DOI: 10.1002/cre2.70060.

Assessment of a novel electrochemically deposited smart bioactive trabecular coating (SBTC®): a randomized controlled clinical trial.

Antal M, Kiscsatari R, Braunitzer G, Piffko J, Varga E, Eliaz N Head Face Med. 2024; 20(1):24.

PMID: 38627712 PMC: 11022491. DOI: 10.1186/s13005-024-00426-0.

Evaluation of bite force, quality of life, and patients' satisfaction in elderly edentulous patients using implant overdentures.

Avukat E, Akay C, Mumcu E J Adv Prosthodont. 2023; 15(4):214-226.

PMID: 37662854 PMC: 10471504. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2023.15.4.214.

Immediate versus Delayed Attachment Incorporation Impact on Prosthetic Aftercare among Mandibular Implant-Supported Overdenture Wearers.

Zenziper E, Rosner O, Ghelfan O, Nissan J, Blumer S, Ben-Izhack G J Clin Med. 2022; 11(12).

PMID: 35743594 PMC: 9224628. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11123524.

Duong H, Roccuzzo A, Stahli A, Salvi G, Lang N, Sculean A Periodontol 2000. 2022; 88(1):201-237.

PMID: 35103325 PMC: 9304161. DOI: 10.1111/prd.12419.

References

Fouda S, Al-Attar M, I Virtanen J, Raustia A . Effect of Patient's Personality on Satisfaction with Their Present Complete Denture and after Increasing the Occlusal Vertical Dimension: A Study of Edentulous Egyptian Patients. Int J Dent. 2014; 2014:635943. PMC: 4119631. DOI: 10.1155/2014/635943. View

Kuoppala R, Napankangas R, Raustia A . Quality of Life of Patients Treated With Implant-Supported Mandibular Overdentures Evaluated With the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14): a Survey of 58 Patients. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2014; 4(2):e4. PMC: 3886109. DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2013.4204. View

Gotfredsen K, Holm B . Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or bar attachments: a randomized prospective 5-year study. Int J Prosthodont. 2001; 13(2):125-30. View

Yabul A, Dayan C, Geckili O, Bilhan H, Tuncer N . Evaluation of volumetric wear of abutments on the retention loss of ball attachment systems in implant-retained overdentures: An in vitro study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018; 20(5):778-784. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12644. View

Kern J, Kern T, Wolfart S, Heussen N . A systematic review and meta-analysis of removable and fixed implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws: post-loading implant loss. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 27(2):174-95. PMC: 5024059. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12531. View

John M, Miglioretti D, LeResche L, Koepsell T, Hujoel P, Micheelis W . German short forms of the Oral Health Impact Profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2006; 34(4):277-88. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2006.00279.x. View

ELsyad M, Dayekh M, Khalifa A . Locator Versus Bar Attachment Effect on the Retention and Stability of Implant-Retained Maxillary Overdenture: An In Vitro Study. J Prosthodont. 2017; 28(2):e627-e636. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12608. View

Vahidi F, Pinto-Sinai G . Complications associated with implant-retained removable prostheses. Dent Clin North Am. 2014; 59(1):215-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2014.08.001. View

Slade G . Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1997; 25(4):284-90. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1997.tb00941.x. View

10.

Liu W, Zhang X, Qing H, Wang J . Effect of LOCATOR attachments with different retentive forces on the stability of 2-implant-retained mandibular overdenture. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 124(2):224-229. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.09.005. View

11.

Thomason J, Kelly S, Bendkowski A, Ellis J . Two implant retained overdentures--a review of the literature supporting the McGill and York consensus statements. J Dent. 2011; 40(1):22-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.08.017. View

12.

Sharma A, Nagrath R, Lahori M . A comparative evaluation of chewing efficiency, masticatory bite force, and patient satisfaction between conventional denture and implant-supported mandibular overdenture: An study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2017; 17(4):361-372. PMC: 5730927. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_76_17. View

13.

Teimoori H, Shayegh S, Zavaree M, Hakimaneh S, Khodadad F, Shidfar S . Effects of Excessive Implant Angulation on Retention of Two Types of Overdenture Attachments during Cyclic Loading. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018; 19(10):1221-1227. View

14.

Dashti M, Atashrazm P, Emadi M, Mishaeel S, Banava S . The effects of two attachment types on the stresses introduced to the mandibular residual ridge: a 3D finite element analysis. Quintessence Int. 2013; 44(8):585-90. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a29753. View

15.

Guedat C, Nagy U, Schimmel M, Muller F, Srinivasan M . Clinical performance of LOCATOR® attachments: A retrospective study with 1-8 years of follow-up. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2018; 4(4):132-145. PMC: 6115879. DOI: 10.1002/cre2.122. View

16.

Zweers J, van Doornik A, Hogendorf E, Quirynen M, Van der Weijden G . Clinical and radiographic evaluation of narrow- vs. regular-diameter dental implants: a 3-year follow-up. A retrospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 26(2):149-56. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12309. View

17.

Evtimovska E, Masri R, Driscoll C, Romberg E . The change in retentive values of locator attachments and hader clips over time. J Prosthodont. 2009; 18(6):479-83. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00474.x. View

18.

Knipfer C, Bocklet T, Noeth E, Schuster M, Sokol B, Eitner S . Speech intelligibility enhancement through maxillary dental rehabilitation with telescopic prostheses and complete dentures: a prospective study using automatic, computer-based speech analysis. Int J Prosthodont. 2012; 25(1):24-32. View

19.

Turk P, 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(5):1106-13. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3621. View

20.

ELsyad M, Shawky A . Masticatory function with ball and resilient telescopic anchors of mandibular implant-retained overdentures: A crossover study. Quintessence Int. 2017; 48(8):615-623. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a38555. View