Comparison of Two Low-Profile Prosthetic Retention System Interfaces: Preliminary Data of an In Vitro Study

In recent years, a major research goal of companies has been to create mechanical components suitable for rehabilitation that are safer and more reliable. Evaluating their biomechanical features could be a way to improve them. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the different biomechanical features of low-profile retentive systems (Rhein®). Two different attachment systems were tested: OT Equator® Smart Box and Locator® R-TX. Once a machine was created for the simulation of the connection and disconnection of the attacks in a combined manner, it was possible to evaluate these parameters over time. Attachments were mounted in two different configurations of the divergence angle: 10° and 50°. The drop retention force proved to be stable over time. The Locator® R-TX attachment experienced a more rapid decrement of the retention force than the OT Equator® Smart Box. Both tested systems experienced a high drop in retention; this drop tended to stabilize after 1.5 years of use, and it was correlated with the divergence angle. The OT Equator® Smart Box system underwent this loss of retention more gradually than the Locator® R-TX. This study demonstrates preliminary results from a bioengineering and biomechanical point of view, providing useful information for the continuous improvement of these devices and, therefore, for the quality of patients’ oral health.

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

[2]  A. Caputo,et al.  Effect of anchorage systems and extension base contact on load transfer with mandibular implant-retained overdentures. , 2000, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[3]  R. Masri,et al.  The change in retentive values of locator attachments and hader clips over time. , 2009, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[4]  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.

[5]  M. Awad,et al.  The effect of mandibular 2-implant overdentures on oral health-related quality of life: an international multicentre study. , 2014, Clinical oral implants research.

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

[7]  M. Cicciu',et al.  Oral health-related quality of life in partially edentulous patients before and after implant therapy: a 2-year longitudinal study. , 2013, ORAL & implantology.

[8]  Sang‐Wan Shin,et al.  Attachment systems for mandibular implant overdentures: a systematic review , 2012, The journal of advanced prosthodontics.

[9]  M. Cicciu',et al.  Atomic force microscopy of bacteria from periodontal subgingival biofilm: Preliminary study results , 2013, European journal of dentistry.

[10]  A. Buj-Bello,et al.  The glossary of prosthodontic terms. , 2005, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[11]  M. Srinivasan,et al.  Influence of implant angulation and cyclic dislodging on the retentive force of two different overdenture attachments - an in vitro study. , 2016, Clinical oral implants research.

[12]  C. Chaves,et al.  Preliminary In Vitro Study on O-Ring Wear in Mini-Implant-Retained Overdentures. , 2016, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[13]  Frauke Müller,et al.  Effects of in vitro cyclic dislodging on retentive force and removal torque of three overdenture attachment systems. , 2014, Clinical oral implants research.

[14]  D Krishna Prasad,et al.  Selection of attachment systems in fabricating an implant supported overdenture , 2014 .

[15]  Rosa De Stefano Psychological Factors in Dental Patient Care: Odontophobia , 2019, Medicina.

[16]  L. Fiorillo,et al.  FEM and Von Mises Analysis on Prosthetic Crowns Structural Elements: Evaluation of Different Applied Materials , 2017, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[17]  M. Wichmann,et al.  Wear behavior of precision attachments. , 1999, The International journal of prosthodontics.

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

[19]  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.

[20]  M. Bakke,et al.  Masticatory function and patient satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures: a prospective 5-year study. , 2002, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[21]  T D Taylor,et al.  The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. , 2002, Gerodontology.

[22]  M. Quirynen,et al.  Prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction with two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a 10-year randomized clinical study. , 2005, The International journal of prosthodontics.