Home Articles List Article Information
Alexandria Dental Journal
Journal Archive
Volume Volume 49 (2024)
Volume Volume 48 (2023)
Volume Volume 47 (2022)
Volume Volume 46 (2021)
Issue Issue 3
A (Oral and maxillofacial surgery, oral medicine, periodontology, oral radiology, oral pathology, oral biology)
Issue Issue 3
B (Endodontics, Prosthodontics, Fixed prosthodontics, Conservative dentistry, Dental Biomaterials)
Issue Issue 3
C (Pediatric dentistry, Dental public health, Orthodontics)
Issue Issue 2
A (Oral and maxillofacial surgery, oral medicine, periodontology, oral radiology, oral pathology, oral biology)
Issue Issue 2
B (Endodontics, Prosthodontics, Fixed prosthodontics, Conservative dentistry, Dental Biomaterials)
Issue Issue 2
C (Pediatric dentistry, Dental public health, Orthodontics)
Issue Issue 1
A (Oral and maxillofacial surgery, oral medicine, periodontology, oral radiology, oral pathology, oral biology)
Issue Issue 1
B (Endodontics, Prosthodontics, Fixed prosthodontics, Conservative dentistry, Dental Biomaterials)
Issue Issue 1
C (Pediatric dentistry, Dental public health, Orthodontics)
Volume Volume 45 (2020)
Volume Volume 44 (2019)
Volume Volume 43 (2018)
Volume Volume 42 (2017)
Volume Volume 41 (2016)
Volume Volume 40 (2015)
Ebiary, M., Eldidi, L., AbdelHakim, A. (2021). COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BAR, POSITIONER AND BALL ATTACHMENT IN SOLITARY VERSUS SPLINTED IMPLANT ASSISTED MANDIBULAR OVERDENTURE (IN VITRO STUDY). Alexandria Dental Journal, 46(3), 110-116. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2021.140531
Mohamed H. Ebiary; Lubna Eldidi; Ahmed A. AbdelHakim. "COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BAR, POSITIONER AND BALL ATTACHMENT IN SOLITARY VERSUS SPLINTED IMPLANT ASSISTED MANDIBULAR OVERDENTURE (IN VITRO STUDY)". Alexandria Dental Journal, 46, 3, 2021, 110-116. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2021.140531
Ebiary, M., Eldidi, L., AbdelHakim, A. (2021). 'COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BAR, POSITIONER AND BALL ATTACHMENT IN SOLITARY VERSUS SPLINTED IMPLANT ASSISTED MANDIBULAR OVERDENTURE (IN VITRO STUDY)', Alexandria Dental Journal, 46(3), pp. 110-116. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2021.140531
Ebiary, M., Eldidi, L., AbdelHakim, A. COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BAR, POSITIONER AND BALL ATTACHMENT IN SOLITARY VERSUS SPLINTED IMPLANT ASSISTED MANDIBULAR OVERDENTURE (IN VITRO STUDY). Alexandria Dental Journal, 2021; 46(3): 110-116. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2021.140531

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BAR, POSITIONER AND BALL ATTACHMENT IN SOLITARY VERSUS SPLINTED IMPLANT ASSISTED MANDIBULAR OVERDENTURE (IN VITRO STUDY)

Article 5, Volume 46, Issue 3, December 2021, Page 110-116  XML PDF (1.21 MB)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2021.140531
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Authors
Mohamed H. Ebiary email orcid 1; Lubna Eldidi1; Ahmed A. AbdelHakim2
1prosthodontic department, faculty of dentistry, Alexandria university, Alexandria, Egypt.
2Vice Dean, Faculty of Dentistry. Professor, Department of Removable Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt.
Abstract
Introduction: The conventional treatment for completely edentulous patients is complete denture. But patients can have substantial difficulties using their conventional complete dentures due to a lack of retention, support, and stability and the related compromise in chewing ability. Endosseous implants have been shown to be a valuable rehabilitation for these patients. To enhance retention and stability of denture, various overdenture attachments systems can be used for mandibular implant overdentures.
Aim of the study: The aim of this study is to evaluate the retention of the prosthesis with different implant number and different attachment systems.
Materials and Methods: The model was used in two groups according to the number of implants. Group A model with two loaded implants in the canine region. Group B model with four loaded implants in the canine region and in the second premolar region. Each group was divided into three subgroups with different attachment systems positioner, bar & ball. Retention of attachments was evaluated by universal testing machine.

Results: It was observed that there was statistically significant difference between the different attachment systems, as bar attachment showed higher retentive force value with mean = 101.47 ± 25.04 compared with locator attachment with mean =55.53 ± 15.98 and ball attachment with mean = 52.71 ± 12.56. P value ≤ 0.05.
Conclusion: bar attachment group showed favourable retentive force compared with locator and ball attachment, and four implants overdenture showed higher retentive force compared with two implants overdenture.
Keywords: Implant overdenture, Bar attachment, Ball attachment, Locator attachment
Keywords
Implant overdenture; Bar attachment; Ball attachment; Locator attachment
Main Subjects
Prosthodontics
References
Van Blarcom CW, Bello A, Eckert SE, Goodacre CJ, Morgano SM, Nathanson D. The Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms 8th edition. J Prosthet Dent. 2005; 94(1):10–92.

    • Kim Y. Attachment systems for mandibular implant overdentures: a systematic review. J Adv Prosthodont. 2012; 4: 197–203.

    • Thomason JM, Kelly SA, Bendkowski A, Ellis JS. Two implant retained overdentures - A review of the literature supporting the McGill and York consensus statements. J Dent. 2012; 40: 22–34.

    • Spitzl C, Pröschel P, Wichmann M, Heckmann S. Long-term neuromuscular status in overdenture and complete denture patients with severe mandibular atrophy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27: 155–61

    • Burns, D.R. Mandibular implant overdenture treatment: consensus and controversy. Journal of Prosthodontics 2000; 9: 37–46.

    • Sadowsky, S.J. Mandibular implant-retained overdenture: a literature review. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2001; 86: 468–73.

    • Feine, J.S., Carlsson, G.E., Awad, M.A., Chehade, A., Duncan, W.J., 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 (4): 601-2.

    • Klemetti, E. Is there a certain number of implants needed to retain an overdenture? Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2008; 35: 80-4.

    • British Society for the Study of Prosthetic Dentistry. The York consensus statement on implant-supported overdentures. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2009; 17 (4): 164-5.

    • Thomason,J.M.,Feine,J.,Exley,C.,Moynihan,P.,Mu ̈ller,F.,Naert,I.,Ellis,J.S.,Barclay,C.,Butterworth,C., Scott, B., Lynch, C., Stewardson, D., Smith, P., Welfare, R., Hyde, P., McAndrew, R., Fenlon, M., Barclay, S. & Barker, D. Mandibular two implant-supported overdenture as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients—the York Consensus Statement. British Dental Journal 2009; 207: 185–6.

    • Evtimovska E, Masri R, Driscoll CF, Romberg E. The change in retentive values of locator attachments and hader clips over time. J Prosthodont 2009; 18: 479-83.

    • Tahini G, Z.Baba N, Berberi A, Majzoub Z, Bassal H, Rifai K. Effect of Simulated Mastication on the Retention of Locator Attachments for Implant-Supported Overdentures: An InVitro Pilot Study. Journal of Prosthodontics 2020; 29: 74-9.

    • HakanBilhan,OnurGeckili,TongucSulun,TayfunBilgin,AQuality-of-LifeComparisonBetweenSelf-Aligning and Ball Attachment Systems for 2-Implant–Retained Mandibular Overdentures, J oral implantol. 2011; 37: 167- 73.

    • Sadig W. A comparative in vitro study on the retention and stability of implant-supported over dentures. Quintessence Int. 2009; 40: 313-9.

    • PasciutaM,GrossmannY,IsraelM.Aprostheticsolutiontorestoringtheedentulousmandiblewithlimitedinter- arch space using an implant-tissue-supported overdenture: A clinical report. J Prosthetic Dent. 2005; 93:116-20.

    • NaertI,GizaniS,VuylstekeM,vanSteenbergheD.A5-yearrandomizedclinicaltrialontheinfluenceofsplinted and unsplinted oral implants in the mandibular overdenture therapy. Part I: Peri-implant outcome. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998; 9: 170-7.

    • Kleis WK, Kammer PW, Hartmann S, Al-Nawas B, Wagner W. A comparison of three different attachment systems for mandibular two implant overdentures: One-year report. Clin Imp Dent Res. 2010; 12: 209-18.

    • Ibrahim AM, Radi I AW. The effect of two types of attachments on the bone height changes around divergent implants retaining mandibular overdentures. Cairo Dent J. 2009; 25: 181-9.

    • Cordaro L, Di Torresanto VM, Petricevic N, Jornet PR, Torsello F. Single unit attachments improve peri-implant soft tissue conditions in mandibular overdentures supported by four implants. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2013; 24: 536- 42.

    • GulizioM,AgarJ,KellyR,TaylorT.Effectofimplantangulationuponretentionofoverdentureattachments.Int J Prosthodont. 2005; 14: 3-11

    • KurianBP,D'limaJ,KarthikeyanCR,MathewJ,PaulT,HareeshMT.Prostheticefficiencyofimplant-supported overdentures with locator attachment: A Clinical case report. J int oral health. 2015; 7: 129-32.

    • Theodoros T, Konstantinos M, Hiroshi H. Attachment systems for implant retained overdentures. J Impl Dent. 2006; 1: 24-34.

    • Doundoulakis JH, Eckert SE, Lindquist CC, Jeffcoat MK. The implant‐supported overdenture as an alternative to the complete mandibular denture. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134: 1455‐8.

    • Cune M, van Kampen P, 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.

    NaertI,GizaniS,VuylstekeM,VanSteenbergheD.A5‐yearprospectiverandomizedclinicaltrialontheinfluence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: Prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction. J Oral Rehabil 1999; 26: 195‐202.

    • KobayashiM,SrinivasanM,AmmannP,PerriardJ,OhkuboC,MüllerF,etal.Effectsofinvitrocyclicdislodging on retentive force and removal torque of three overdenture attachment systems. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014; 25: 426‐34.

    • Shastry,T. , Anupama,N. M. , Shetty, S., Nalinakshamma, M. An in vitro comparative study to evaluate the retention of different attachment systems used in implant‐retained overdentures. The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 2016; 16 :159-166.

    • Sinclair PM, little RM. Maturation of untreated normal occlusions. Am J Orthod. 1983; 83: 114-23.

    • GeorgiopoulosB,KaliorasK,ProvatidisC,MandaM,KoidisP.TheEffectsofImplantLengthandDiameterPrior to and After Osseointegration: A 2-D Finite Element Analysis. Journal of Oral Implantology. 2007; 33(5): 243-

    56.

    • Chung KH, Chung CY,Canga DR, Cronin RJ. Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant

    overdentures. J Prosthodont 2004; 13: 221 -6.

    • Sarnat AE. The efficiency of cobalt samarium magnets as retentive units for overdentures. J Dent 1983; 11: 324-

    33.

    • Scherer M, McGlumphy E, Seghi R, Campagni W. Comparison of Retention and Stability of Implant-Retained

    Overdentures Based upon Implant Number and Distribution. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial

    Implants. 2013; 28(6): 1619-28.

    • Abdulamajeed A, H.Hassan R. The Effect of Implant Number, Distribution with Different Attachments on the

    Retention and Stability of Implant Supported Overdenture. Journal of Advanced Research in Medical and Health

    science. 2017; 3(9): 7-21.

    • Elmowafy DA, Emera RMK, Hegazy SA. Two versus three implants for retaining mandibular overdenture with

    low profile attachment: a study of retention and peri−implant tissue health. J Dent Maxillofacial Res. 2019;

    2(4):70-77.

    • Batenburg, R.H., Raghoebar, G.M., Van Oort, R.P., Heijdenrijk, K. & Boering, G. Mandibular overdentures

    supported by two or four endosteal implants. A prospective, comparative study. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial

    Surgery 1998; 27: 435–9.

    • Meijer, H.J., Raghoebar, G.M., Batenburg, R.H., Visser, A. & Vissink, A. Mandibular overdentures supported by

    two or four endosseous implants: a 10-year clinical trial. Clinical Oral Implant Research 2009; 20: 722–8.

    • Alsabeeha NH, Payne AG, Swain MV. Attachment systems for mandibular two‐implant overdentures: A review

    of in vitro investigations on retention and wear features. Int J Prosthodont 2009; 22: 429‐40.

    • ElsaydEl,DayekhM,KhalifaA.LocatorVersusBarAttachmentEffectontheRetentionandStabilityofImplant-

    Retained Maxillary Overdenture An In Vitro Study. Journal of Prosthodontics 2019; 28: 627-36.

    • Burns, D.R., Unger, J.W., Coffey, J.P., Waldrop, T.C. & Elswick, R.K. Jr Randomized, prospective, clinical evaluation of prosthodontic modalities for mandibular implant overdenture treatment. Journal of Prosthetic

    Dentistry 2011; 106: 12–22.

    • KobayashiM,SrinivasanM,AmmannP,PerriardJ,OhkuboC,MüllerF,etal.Effectsofinvitrocyclicdislodging

    on retentive force and removal torque of three overdenture attachment systems. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014; 25:

    426‐34.

    • Steiner M, Ludwig K, Kern M. Retention forces of a new implant‐supported bar attachment system. Clin Oral

    Implants Res 2009; 20: 1025‐6.

    • Yang TC, 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: 1315‐9.

    Statistics
    Article View: 652
    PDF Download: 1,240