Details
Category: Volume 08 Issue 01 January 2020
Hits: 1094

Title: Study of retention ability of different implant retained overdenture associated attachment systems

Authors: Dr Naeem Ahmed, Dr Girija Jaiman, Dr Siraj DAA Khan

 DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v8i1.165

Abstract

Background: Overdenture supported implant attachment system is most commonly used in edentulous patients. Problem associated with implant success includes prosthetic problems, severely resorbed mandibular ridge etc. Present work is aimed to evaluate stability and retention capability of different implant retained overdenture.

Materials and Methods:  An overdenture was made on an edentulous mandibular model with heat cured polymethyl methacrylate resin.  These ovser dentures were fabricated and shaped to accept three different attachment systems  which divided into three group; Group I, Group II and Group III i.e. ball/o ring attachment, Hader bar and clip attachment and locator implant over denture attachment stud type respectively. These all attachments were checked for retention force both before as well as after thermocycling (AT)

Results: Group I showed 52.12 and 49.10 mean retention force vale before thermocycling (BT) and after thermocycling (AT) respectively. Whereas BT and AT values of retention force for Group II (bar and clip attachment) was 79.10 and 70.67 respectively. These values for locator stud attachment i.e. Group III were 40.14 BT and 38.21 AT. The difference among BT and AT in all groups was significant (P< 0.01).

Conclusion: As data observed, ball o ring and bar clip attachments were observed to be superior over locator stud attachment.

Keywords: Overdentures implant, mandibular redge, attachment system, bar and clip.

References

  1. Toshio H, Masakazu M, Naoyuki S, Yoshikazu Y. Influence of denture treatment on brain function activity. Japanese Dental Science Review, vol. 2011; 47:.56-66.
  2. Frometin O, Lassauzay C, Abi Nader S, Feine RF J, de Albuquerque Junior, Testing the retention of attachments for implant overdentures validation of an original force measurement system. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. 2010; 37: 54-62.
  3. Vasant R, Vasant MK. Retention systems for implant-retained Overdentures, Dental Update. 2013; 4: 28-31.
  4. Fontijn FA, Slagter AP, Van-der Bilt A, Van TH , Witter DJ. Biting and chewing in overdentures, full dentures, and natural dentitions. Journal of Dental Research. 2000; 79: 1519-1524.
  5. Chung KH, Chung CY, Cagna DR, Cronin RJ Jr. Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont..  2004; 13: 221-
  6. Evtimovska E, Masri R , Driscoll CF, Romberg E. The change in retentive values of locator attachments and Hader clips over time. Journal of Prosthodontic. 2009; 18: 479-483.
  7. Mentag P, Kosinski T. A clinical case illustrating a new Implant, Dentistry Today. 1991; 10;.48-49.
  8. The glossary The glossary of prosthodontics terms. J Prosthet Dent. 2005;  94: 69.
  9. Setz I, Lee SH, Engel E. Retention of prefabricated attachments for implant stabilized overdentures in the edentulous mandible: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 1998; 80: 323-329.
  10. Daou EE. Biomaterial aspects: A key factor in the longevity of implant overdenture attachment systems. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2015; 5:.255-262.
  11. Srinivasan M, Schimmel M, Badoud I, Ammann P, Herrmann FR, Muller F. Influence of implant angulation and cyclic dislodging on the retentive force of two different overdenture attachments - an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27: 604-611.
  12. Alsabeeha N, Atieh M, Payne AG. Loading protocols for mandibular implant overdentures: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010; 12: 28-38.
  13. Bayer S, Keilig L, Kraus D, Grüner M, Stark H, Mues S, et al. Influence of the lubricant and the alloy on the wear behaviour of attachments. Gerodontology. 2011a; 28:.221‑
  14. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA,et al, The McGill consensus statement on overdentures: mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Montreal, Quebec, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002; 17:.601–602. 
  15. 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:  99–105.
  16. Dutt P, Chand P, Srivastava V, Singh BP.  Evaluation of Retention of Different Attachment System used in Implant Retained Overdenture. J Adv Med Dent Scie Res. 2018; 6(4): .95-97.
  17. Mohamed Y Abdelfattah, Mohammed K Fahmi, Evaluation of Two Different Attachment Systems Used with Mandibular Implant-Retained Overdenture. 2019; 18(!): 1-6.
  18. Sadowsky SJ. Mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent. 2001; 86: 468-73.
  19. Karabuda C, Yaltirik M, Bayraktar M. A clinical comparison of prosthetic complications of implant-supported overdentures with different attachment systems. Implant Dent. 2008; 17: 74-81.
  20. Kleis WK, Kämmerer PW , 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. 2010; 12:.209-18.
  21. Van Kampen F , Cune M , Van der Bilt A, Bosman F. Retention and postinsertion maintenance of bar-clip, ball and magnet attachments in mandibular implant overdenture treatment: an in vivo comparison after 3 months of function. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003; 14: 720-6.
  22. Büttel AE , Bühler NM, Marinello CP. Locator or ball attachment: a guide for clinical decision making, Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed.  2009; 119:901-18.
  23. Trakas T, Michalakis K, Kang K ,Hirayama H.  Attachment systems for implant retained overdentures: a literature review.  Implant Dent. 2006;15: 24-34.

Corresponding Author

Dr Naeem Ahmed

MDS (Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeon), Senior Resident, Department of Dentistry, Sardar Patel Medical College and Associated Hospital, Bikaner