Effects of in vitro cyclic dislodging on retentive force and removal torque of three overdenture attachment systems.

BACKGROUND Mandibular two-implant-retained overdentures were suggested as first choice of treatment for edentulous mandibles. However, wear of the attachments may reduce their retention and compromise long-term clinical success. AIM The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the change in the retentive force and removal torque of three attachment systems during simulation of insertion-removal cycles. MATERIALS AND METHODS Thirty custom-manufactured polyvinyl chloride blocks mimicking an implant-retained overdenture using Locator(®) -, spherical Dalbo(®) -PLUS - and SFI(®) -Bar-attachments on Straumann(®) RN Implants were fabricated. The samples were distributed equally into three groups which were subdivided into two sets of five blocks, one set with implants parallel to one another and the other with angulated implants (12°). All attachments were tightened to 35Ncm, while the fixation screws of the SFI(®) -Bar were tightened to 15Ncm. Testing was carried out with an Instron(®) universal testing machine for a total of 14,600 insertion-removal cycles in 0.9% sodium chloride solution. Retentive forces from cycles 10, 100, 1000, 5000, 10,000 and 14,600 were used for the analysis. The removal torque of the attachments was measured before and at the end of the study. Statistical analysis comprised three-way ANOVA and multiple linear regression models. RESULTS Initially, all three attachment systems demonstrated increasing retentive forces. From cycle 5000 on, Locator(®) -attachments showed lower mean retentive forces than the Dalbo(®) -PLUS and SFI(®) -Bar-groups. The Dalbo(®) -PLUS and SFI(®) -Bar-attachments showed a steady yet not significant increase during the whole observation period. Implant-angulation had no significant influence on the retention forces. The final mean removal torques were significantly reduced. No complete failure was observed. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS Within the limits of this in vitro study, it can be concluded that the investigated overdenture attachment systems are sufficiently resistant to wear. However, the Dalbo(®) -Plus- and SFI(®) -Bar- exhibit higher retentive capacities than the Locator(®) -attachment over time. The fixation screw of the SFI(®) -Bar may loosen during long-term use, but these observations might be less important if 1-year recall intervals are respected. An angulation of up to 12° between implants does not seem to have a significant effect on attachment wear.

[1]  A. El-Sheikh,et al.  Two Versus Three Narrow-Diameter Implants with Locator Attachments Supporting Mandibular Overdentures: A Two-Year Prospective Study , 2012, International journal of dentistry.

[2]  D. Walshaw,et al.  A patient-based assessment of implant-stabilized and conventional complete dentures. , 2001, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[3]  C. Bourauel,et al.  Investigation of the wear of prefabricated attachments--an in vitro study of retention forces and fitting tolerances. , 2007, Quintessence international.

[4]  M. Jeffcoat,et al.  The implant-supported overdenture as an alternative to the complete mandibular denture. , 2003, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[5]  D. Kozak,et al.  Effect of repeated closures on opening torque values in seven abutment-implant systems. , 2000, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[6]  S. Sadowsky Mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a literature review. , 2001, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[7]  P. Pröschel,et al.  Improvement and long-term stability of neuromuscular adaptation in implant-supported overdentures. , 2009, Clinical oral implants research.

[8]  M. Swain,et al.  Attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: a review of in vitro investigations on retention and wear features. , 2009, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[9]  M. Yaltırık,et al.  A Clinical Comparison of Prosthetic Complications of Implant-Supported Overdentures With Different Attachment Systems , 2008, Implant dentistry.

[10]  J. Brudvik,et al.  Retention of ERA direct overdenture attachments before and after fatigue loading. , 1997, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[11]  Yoshinobu Maeda,et al.  Attachment systems for implant overdenture: influence of implant inclination on retentive and lateral forces. , 2011, Clinical oral implants research.

[12]  V. Rutkunas,et al.  Wear simulation effects on overdenture stud attachments. , 2011, Dental materials journal.

[13]  C. Lassauzay,et al.  Wear of ball attachments after 1 to 8 years of clinical use: a qualitative analysis. , 2011, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[14]  K. Gotfredsen,et al.  Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or bar attachments: a randomized prospective 5-year study. , 2000, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[15]  M. Yaltırık,et al.  Complications associated with the ball, bar and Locator attachments for implant-supported overdentures. , 2011, Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal.

[16]  J. E. Hutton,et al.  Prosthodontic treatment, patient response, and the need for maintenance of complete implant-supported overdentures: an appraisal of 5 years of prospective study. , 1997, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[17]  V. Barão,et al.  Evaluation of the effect of retightening and mechanical cycling on preload maintenance of retention screws. , 2011, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[18]  L. Keilig,et al.  Influence of the lubricant and the alloy on the wear behaviour of attachments. , 2011, Gerodontology.

[19]  R. Mericske-Stern,et al.  Retention force of plastic clips on implant bars: a randomized controlled trial. , 2012, Clinical oral implants research.

[20]  J. P. Lund,et al.  Oral health status and treatment satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures: a randomized clinical trial in a senior population. , 2003, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[21]  G. Carlsson,et al.  What are the prevalence and incidence of tooth loss in the adult and elderly population in Europe? , 2007, Clinical oral implants research.

[22]  Akihiko Hashimoto,et al.  Effect of lateral cyclic loading on abutment screw loosening of an external hexagon implant system. , 2004, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[23]  A. Khraisat,et al.  Abutment screw loosening and bending resistance of external hexagon implant system after lateral cyclic loading. , 2004, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[24]  R. Masri,et al.  The effect of denture cleansing solutions on the retention of pink locator attachments after multiple pulls: an in vitro study. , 2011, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[25]  Mariko Kobayashi Comparing the Retentive Force of O-ring and Several Retained Systems for One-piece Root-form Implant-retained Overdentures , 2006 .

[26]  C. Besimo,et al.  In vitro retention force changes of prefabricated attachments for overdentures. , 2003, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[27]  R. D. de Souza,et al.  Effect of simulated masticatory loading on the retention of stud attachments for implant overdentures. , 2011, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[28]  A. van der Bilt,et al.  Patient satisfaction and preference with magnet, bar-clip, and ball-socket retained mandibular implant overdentures: a cross-over clinical trial. , 2005, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[29]  G E Carlsson,et al.  The future of complete dentures in oral rehabilitation. A critical review. , 2010, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[30]  A. Haffajee,et al.  Microbiological and clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction for two treatment options in the edentulous lower jaw after 10 years of function , 2005 .

[31]  T D Taylor,et al.  Management of the edentulous patient. , 2000, Clinical oral implants research.

[32]  E. Romeo,et al.  A double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) of Titanium-13Zirconium versus Titanium Grade IV small-diameter bone level implants in edentulous mandibles--results from a 1-year observation period. , 2012, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[33]  M. Heath,et al.  Maximum bite force after the replacement of complete dentures , 2001 .

[34]  Ameen Khraisat,et al.  Fatigue resistance of two implant/abutment joint designs. , 2002, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[35]  J. Walton,et al.  One-year prosthetic outcomes with implant overdentures: a randomized clinical trial. , 2002, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[36]  Hiroshi Mizutani,et al.  Evaluation of stable retentive properties of overdenture attachments. , 2005, Stomatologija.

[37]  Sang‐Wan Shin,et al.  Immediate loading on mandibular edentulous patient with SFI Bar® overdenture , 2011, The journal of advanced prosthodontics.

[38]  D. Steenberghe,et al.  A 5-year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction. , 1999, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[39]  B. Scott,et al.  Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients - the York Consensus Statement , 2009, BDJ.

[40]  F. Müller,et al.  Masseter muscle thickness, chewing efficiency and bite force in edentulous patients with fixed and removable implant-supported prostheses: a cross-sectional multicenter study. , 2012, Clinical oral implants research.

[41]  B. Al-Nawas,et al.  A comparison of three different attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: one-year report. , 2009, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[42]  Frauke Müller,et al.  Edentulism as part of the general health problems of elderly adults. , 2010, International dental journal.