Retentive characteristics of a vinylpolysiloxane overdenture attachment system

ObjectivesNumerous different attachments are used to retain overdentures on implants. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a new chairside attachment system based on polyvinylsiloxane (PVS).Material and methodsA total of 250 specimens were fabricated (n = 10) to measure the retention force (RF) in dependence of the following parameters: fatigue (after 100, 200, 500, 1,000, and 5,000 cycles of dislodging), thermal undulation (10,000 cycles between 5 and 55 °C), implant angulation (0°, 5°, and 10°), and disinfection (three different agents). Three different PVS materials (shore hardness (SH), SH25, SH50, and SH65) were evaluated; locator attachments (LR blue) served as controls. Data were imported into a statistical program and analyzed at a 5 % level of significance.ResultsInitial RFs were dependent on the shore hardness (p ≤ 0.001, ANOVA). No changes in RFs were observed for PVS groups after repeated dislodging and thermal undulation. Locator attachments revealed a significant decrease in retention force of up to 58 % (p ≤ 0.001, Fig. 3). No significant changes in RFs were induced by implant angulation. Retention force was decreased in some PVS groups after storage in disinfection solution.ConclusionsPolyvinylsiloxane attachments provide an alternative to locator attachments, exhibiting better stability of the retention force.Clinical relevanceThe presented directly fabricated chairside attachment system represents RFs superior to existing attachment systems after artificial aging.

[1]  U. Meyer,et al.  Comparison of prevalence of microorganisms on titanium and silicone/polymethyl methacrylate obturators used for rehabilitation of maxillary defects. , 2008, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[2]  K. Chung,et al.  Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant overdentures. , 2004, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[3]  R. Mericske-Stern,et al.  Within-subject comparison of two rigid bar designs connecting two interforaminal implants: patients' satisfaction and prosthetic results. , 2009, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[4]  D. Davis.  Implant supported overdentures--the King's experience. , 1997, Journal of dentistry.

[5]  D. Radford,et al.  The retentive forces of the locator attachment system at different angulations. , 2012, The European journal of prosthodontics and restorative dentistry.

[6]  Sandra Parker,et al.  The relationship between Shore hardness of elastomeric dental materials and Young's modulus. , 2009, Dental Materials.

[7]  D. Davis.  Implant-stabilized overdentures. , 1997, Dental update.

[8]  G. Thompson,et al.  The impact of the demographics of aging and the edentulous condition on dental care services. , 1998, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[9]  L. Keilig,et al.  Comparative study of four retentive anchor systems for implant supported overdentures--retention force changes. , 2009, Gerodontology.

[10]  D van Steenberghe,et al.  Prosthetic aspects of osseointegrated fixtures supporting overdentures. A 4-year report. , 1991, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[11]  W. Sadig.  A comparative in vitro study on the retention and stability of implant-supported overdentures. , 2009, Quintessence international.

[12]  C. Douglass,et al.  Future needs for fixed and removable partial dentures in the United States. , 2002, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

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

[14]  J. Wataha,et al.  Retentive characteristics of overdenture attachments during repeated dislodging and cyclic loading. , 2011, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[15]  V. Petropoulos,et al.  Comparison of retention and release periods for implant overdenture attachments. , 1997, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[16]  Hiroshi Mizutani,et al.  Retentive and Stabilizing Properties of Stud and Magnetic Attachments Retaining Mandibular Overdenture. An in vitro Study , 2004 .

[17]  J. Hoogstraten,et al.  Treatment outcome with implant-retained overdentures: Part II--Patient satisfaction and predictability of subjective treatment outcome. , 1994, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[18]  J. Lund,et al.  Within-subject Comparisons of Implant-supported Mandibular Prostheses: Choice of Prosthesis , 1994, Journal of dental research.

[19]  A. Gent,et al.  On the Relation between Indentation Hardness and Young's Modulus , 1958 .

[20]  S. Holst,et al.  Comparing bar and double-crown attachments in implant-retained prosthetic reconstruction: a follow-up investigation. , 2008, Clinical oral implants research.

[21]  C. Douglass,et al.  Will there be a need for complete dentures in the United States in 2020? , 2002, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[22]  A M Ferman,et al.  Effects of attachment type on the mobility of implant-stabilized overdentures--an in vitro study. , 2000, The International journal of prosthodontics.