Retentive Behavior of Locator versus Ball Attachments on Parallel versus Non-Parallel Implants
Source abstract
Abstract
Several factors determine the retention force in removable implant-retained overdentures using prefabricated ball- or locator-type attachment systems. In this context, it was the goal of this in vitro study to examine the effect of implant angulation and female part alignment. Two model situations with two parallel or 12° tilted implants were fabricated onto which locator or ball attachments could be mounted. Simulated prostheses (n = 5) were made as antagonist parts and the assemblies were positioned in a universal testing machine for repeatedly (three times per female attachment) quantifying retention force. Statistical analysis was based on Shapiro–Wilk tests, Levene tests, ANOVAs, Tukey’s HSD tests and Welch t-tests, with the level of significance set at p < 0.05. With tilted implants, the retention force of locators was significantly diminished (p < 0.004) by at least 21%, while with ball attachments, a maximum reduction of 8% was noted, with only yellow inserts showing a significant difference (p = 0.040) compared with the parallel situation. Not aligning female retentive components on tilted implants for achieving a common path of insertion in ball anchors had only a minor effect on retentive force (6.5% increase as compared with aligned female parts), which was not statistically significant (p = 0.100). Not being able to establish a common path of insertion in locator attachments affects retention force. Ball anchors allow for aligning female retentive components, but due to the spherical structure of the male component this seems not even to be necessary.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes · Orthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation · Dental materials and restorations
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Prosthodontics, Saarland University, D-66424 Homburg, Germany
Hader Solutions & Distribution LTD., K67 V4H1 Dublin, Ireland
References (23)
Show source-provided references
1. Comparison of two resilient attachment systems for implant-/mucosa-supported overdentures with a PEKK framework: A clinical pilot study10.1007/s00784-021-04342-4 ↗
2. Prasad, S., Faverani, L.P., Santiago Junior, J.F., Sukotjo, C., and Yuan, J.C. (2022). Attachment systems for mandibular implant-supported overdentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Prosthet. Dent., online ahead of print.10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.08.004 ↗
3. A 5-Year Retrospective Assay of Implant Treatments in Private Practice: The Restorative Complications of Long-Span Implant-Supported Fixed and Removable Dental Prostheses10.11607/ijp.5554 ↗
4. A prospective cohort on the incidence of fractures in single-implant mandibular overdentures10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103521 ↗
5. Retention and wear behaviors of two implant overdenture stud-type attachments at different implant angulations10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.027 ↗
6. Friedrichsen, M., Dirksen, D., and Runte, C. (2023). In vitro measurement of the retention force of two stud attachment systems during cyclic load. J. Prosthodont.10.1111/jopr.13665 ↗
7. Wichmann, N., Kern, M., Taylor, T., Wille, S., and Passia, N. (2020). Retention and wear of resin matrix attachments for implant overdentures. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., 110.10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103901 ↗
8. Implant-Retained Overdentures Using an Attachment with True-Alignment Correction: A Case Series10.11607/ijp.6469 ↗
9. The influence of interimplant divergence on the retention characteristics of locator attachments, a laboratory study10.1111/jopr.12144 ↗
10. Dislodgement force analysis of an overdenture attachment system10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.11.009 ↗
11. Attachment systems for implant overdenture: Influence of implant inclination on retentive and lateral forces10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02137.x ↗
12. Effect of Distal Implant Inclination on Dislodging Forces of Different Locator Attachments Used for Mandibular Overdentures: An In Vitro Study
13. Retention forces of spherical attachments as a function of implant and matrix angulation in mandibular overdentures: An in vitro study10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60045-7 ↗
14. Long-term retention behaviour of resin matrix attachment systems for overdentures10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.11.038 ↗
15. The in vitro effect of different implant angulations and cyclic dislodgement on the retentive properties of an overdenture attachment system10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60134-7 ↗
16. A comparison of three different attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: One-year report10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00154.x ↗
17. A new triple-scan protocol for 3D fit assessment of dental restorations
18. In vitro comparison of the retentive properties of ball and locator attachments for implant overdentures10.11607/jomi.3621 ↗
19. Brushing effect on the retentive force of retentive inserts in three denture attachments: An in vitro study10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.06.014 ↗
20. Comparative study of four retentive anchor systems for implant supported overdentures--retention force changes10.1111/j.1741-2358.2009.00286.x ↗
21. Retentive force variations of stud attachments for implant overdentures
22. Investigation of retentive force reduction and wear of the locator attachment system with different implant angulations10.11607/jomi.3687 ↗
23. Influence of aging of PEEK attachment inserts on the pull-off force of implant-retained overdentures—A laboratory study10.1111/clr.14180 ↗