» Articles » PMID: 9109267

Comparison of Retention and Release Periods for Implant Overdenture Attachments

Overview
Specialty Dentistry
Date 1997 Mar 1
PMID 9109267
Citations 19
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the retention and release periods of the Nobel Biocare bar and clip (NBC), Nobel Biocare ball (NB), Zest anchor (ZA), Zest magnet (ZM), and Sterngold ERA (SE) attachments on an implant-retained overdenture model. The attachments were tested using two permanently placed Brånemark implants on a test model that was attached to an Instron machine (cross-head speed 50.8 mm/minute). Each attachment had one part embedded in a denture-like housing, and the other part screwed into the implants. Dislodging tensile forces were applied to the housings in two directions simulating function: vertical and oblique. Eight tests were done in two directions with three samples of each attachment. The dislodging forces generated measurements of the peak load, break load, and displacement at peak load and break load. Release periods were calculated using displacements between the peak load and break load and the cross-head speed. Results showed the NBC to be significantly most retentive for the break load when subjected to vertical and oblique forces with mean values and standard deviations of 2104.5 +/- 506.7 g and 1958.1 +/- 165.4 g, respectively. Next most retentive was the SE, followed by the ZA and NB. The ZM was significantly least retentive (127.8 +/- 7.0 g and 143.5 +/- 19.7 g). For the release period, results showed the NBC to have significantly the fastest release period for vertical and oblique forces (1.86 x 10(-3) and 7.35 x 10(-4) minutes). The ZM significantly had the slowest release period for those forces (3.02 x 10(-2) and 2.35 x 10(-2) minutes). The data suggested that the NBC could be selected when a higher degree of retention and fast release period are desired. The next most retentive was the SE; ZM was the least retentive and had the slowest release period.

Citing Articles

Effect of attachment type and implant position on the retention of mandibular implant-supported overdentures.

Saadati A, Taghavi-Damghani F, Tavakolizadeh S, Hadi A J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2025; 18(4):249-257.

PMID: 39895682 PMC: 11786009. DOI: 10.34172/joddd.41514.


Mastication Wear of Two Low Profile Attachment Systems for Overdenture: An In Vitro Study.

Sassi A, Todaro C, Isola G, Bortolini I, Rodriguez Y Baena R, Storelli S Biomed Res Int. 2024; 2022:6469890.

PMID: 39281060 PMC: 11401661. DOI: 10.1155/2022/6469890.


Retention of implant retained obturator using two implant placement configurations for maxillectomy cases: in-vitro study.

Aboseada N, Mohamed F, El-Shabrawy S BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):1059.

PMID: 39256714 PMC: 11389338. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04797-3.


The Effect of Number and Distribution of Mini Dental Implants on Overdenture Stability: An In Vitro Study.

Alshenaiber R, Barclay C, Silikas N Materials (Basel). 2022; 15(9).

PMID: 35591322 PMC: 9104554. DOI: 10.3390/ma15092988.


How the initial retentive force of implant-supported overdentures can be affected with splinted and unsplinted attachments systems.

Nejatidanesh F, Savabi O, Savabi G, Razavi M Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2022; 18:101.

PMID: 35265284 PMC: 8804546.