Retention Evaluation of Implant-Supported Mandibular Overdenture Using Two Different Attachment Systems: An in Vitro Study

Authors

  • Taban T. Ali Prosthodontic Department, College of Dentistry, University of Sulaimani, Kurdistan Region, Iraq. Author
  • Kawan S. Othman Prosthodontic Department, College of Dentistry, University of Sulaimani, Kurdistan Region, Iraq. Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17656/sdj.10175

Keywords:

CAD/CAM,, Implant supported overdenture, Locator, Milled bar

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the retentive behavior of implant-supported overdenture using two different attachment systems (locator and milled bar-clip attachment system).

Methods: Six edentulous mandibular models were fabricated from cold‑cure PMMA; the denture-bearing area of the acrylic resin model was covered by an approximately 1.5 mm thick silicone resilient liner to simulate mucosa. The Study models were divided into three groups: Model A (locator), Model B (milled bar-clip attachment system without extension), and Model C (milled bar-clip attachment system with 1cm extension). However, for each study model, a complete mandibular denture was constructed. Anterior, posterior, and central dislodging forces were measured by digital force gauge at the beginning of the study (Initial retention) and after 540 courses of consecutive pulling and inserting the prosthesis (final retention), which was to simulate six months of overdenture use assuming three daily removals and insertions for oral hygiene practice.

Results: There were statistically significant differences in retention between the group models, and milled bar-clips attachment systems revealed the highest retentive capacity. However, after six months of simulated use, there was a significant retention loss; retention of Model B recorded the highest percentage loss of 55.1%, while Model A recorded the most minor retention loss of 24%. 

Conclusions: The bar and clip attachment system offered higher retentive values than the locator attachment system. However, the retention loss was correlated to the particular attachment system, and the bar–clip attachment systems had the highest percent of retention loss. In contrast, the locator attachments were associated with acceptable retention, simplicity, and minimal retention.

References

El Khourazaty N, Nassouhy N. Clinical and radiographic assessment of implant overdentures retained by different attachment systems. Egypt Dent J. 2017;63(4):3325-33.

Kumari P, Verma M, Sainia V, Gupta R, Gill S. Rehabilitation of resorbed mandibular ridges using mini implant retained overdentures: A case series with 3 year follow-up. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2016;16(2):221.

Khalifa AK, Wada M, Ikebe K, Maeda Y. To what extent residual alveolar ridge can be preserved by implant? A systematic review. Int J Implant Dent. 2016;2(1):22.

Baba NZ, Al-Harbi FA, AlRumaih HS, AlShehri A. A novel extended range attachment system to retain implant overdentures: A clinical report. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(1):3-9.

Ramadan RE, Mohamed FS. Retention of mandibular implant-retained overdentures with two different attachment designs: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(5):738.e1-738.e6.

Alqutaibi A, Kaddah A. Attachments used with implant-supported overdenture. Int Dent Med J Adv Res. 2016;2(1):1-5.

Leão RS, Moraes SLD, Vasconcelos BCE, Lemos CAA, Pellizzer EP. Splinted and unsplinted overdenture attachment systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Rehabil. 2018;45(8):647-56.

Shastry T, Anupama NM, Shetty S, Nalinakshamma M. An in vitro comparative study to evaluate the retention of different attachment systems used in implant-retained overdentures. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2016;16(2):159-66.

Richert R, Goujat A, Venet L, Viguie G, Viennot S, Robinson P, et al. Intraoral scanner technologies: a review to make a successful impression. J Healthc Eng. 2017;2017:8427595.

Domingue D, Glenn NC, Vest A, White JR. Osseointegrated implant-retained auricular prosthesis constructed using cone-beam computed tomography and a prosthetically driven digital workflow: a case report. Clin case reports. 2021;9(1):37-45.

ELsyad MA, Dayekh MA, Khalifa AK. Locator versus bar attachment effect on the retention and stability of implant-retained maxillary overdenture: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(2):e627-36.

Xia Y, Ma C, Chen J, Witter DJ, Zhang Q, Creugers NHJ. Mandibular residual ridge morphology in relation to complete dentures and implant overdentures-part I: predictors for perceived conventional denture stability. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2021;23(1):131-9.

Nejatidanesh F, Savabi O, Savabi G, Razavi M. How the initial retentive force of implant-supported overdentures can be affected with splinted and unsplinted attachment systems. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2021;18(1):101.

ELsyad MA, Agha NN, Habib AA. Retention and stability of implant-retained mandibular overdentures using different types of resilient attachments: an in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31(5):1040-8.

Takahashi T, Gonda T, Tomita A, Mizuno Y, Maeda Y. Influence of palatal coverage and implant distribution on denture strain in maxillary implant overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31(3):e43-8.

Nassar HI, Abdelaziz MS. Retention of bar clip attachment for mandibular implant overdenture. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22(1):227.

Rutkunas V, Mizutani H, Takahashi H. Influence of attachment wear on retention of mandibular overdenture. J Oral Rehabil. 2007;34(1):41-51.

El-Amier N, Elsaih E, Gibreel M, El-Motaiam H. Effect of implant location on palateless complete overdenture retention: an in vitro study. J oral Maxillofac Res. 2018;9(3):e3

Fromentin O, Lassauzay C, Abi Nader S, Feine J, de Albuquerque Junior RF. Testing the retention of attachments for implant overdentures - validation of an original force measurement system. J Oral Rehabil. 2010;37(1):54-62.

Gupta R, Luthra RP, Mehta S. Comparative analysis of two border molding techniques and materials on maxillary complete denture retention- an in-vivo study. J Adv Med Dent Scie Res. 2015;3(4):109-112.

Yamane K, Sato Y, Furuya J, Kitagawa N, Ikemura N, Shimodaira O. Effect of traction direction and pressure load on the palatal plate on retentive force. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22(1):289.

Qadir BH, Othman K. Retention evaluation of peek telescopic attachment in two implants supported palateless maxillary overdenture. An in-vitro study. Sulaimani Dent J. 2020;7(2):1-8.

Scherer M, Mcglumphy E, Seghi R, Campagni W. Comparison of retention and stability of implant-retained overdentures based upon implant number and distribution. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28(6):1619-28.

Ebiary Mohamed, Eldidi Lubna, AbdelHakim A. Comparative study of bar, positioner and ball attachment in solitary versus splinted implant assisted mandibular overdenture (in vitro study). Alexandria Dent J. 2021;46(3):110-6

ELsyad MA, Soliman TA, Khalifa AK. Retention and stability of rigid telescopic and milled bar attachments for implant-supported maxillary overdentures: an in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33(5):e127-133.

Bhat I, Nagpal A, Chaoudhary A, Komal, Gill H. A treatment approach of mandibular implant retained overdenture: A case report. IP Ann Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2019;5(4):125-30.

Published

2023-12-01

How to Cite

Retention Evaluation of Implant-Supported Mandibular Overdenture Using Two Different Attachment Systems: An in Vitro Study. (2023). Sulaimani Dental Journal, 10(3), 11. https://doi.org/10.17656/sdj.10175