The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 19 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2018 ) > List of Articles


Effect of Cyclic Dislodging on the Retention of Two Attachment Systems for Implant-supported Overdentures: An In Vitro Study

Hani Tohme, Joseph Makzoume, Jihad Fakhoury, Carole Yared

Keywords : Attachments, Dental implants, Edentulous patient, Overdentures, Retentive force

Citation Information : Tohme H, Makzoume J, Fakhoury J, Yared C. Effect of Cyclic Dislodging on the Retention of Two Attachment Systems for Implant-supported Overdentures: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19 (11):1387-1393.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2437

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-06-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; The Author(s).


Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate the retention of two new attachment systems used for implant-supported overdentures subjected to insertionremoval cycles. Materials and methods: Twenty custom-manufactured polyvinyl chloride models mimicking implant-retained overdentureresin blocks were fabricated and divided into two groups (n = 10): group 1 (‘Kerator’ attachment) and group 2 (‘Emi’ attachment). Each model received two parallel implants (JD evolution®) 20 mm apart and was subjected to cyclic retention forces of 10, 100, 1000, 5000, 10000 and 14600 cycles using a universal testing machine in a 0.9% sodium chloride water solution at 22° C. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance; the level of significance was set at α ≤ 0.05. Results: The ‘Kerator’ and ‘Emi’ attachment systems reported a significant decrease in retention (64 and 56.6% respectively) after 14600 insertion-removal cycles (p < 0.001). The ‘Emi’ attachment showed significant higher loss of retention than the ‘Kerator’ attachment all along the 14600 cycles (p < 0.05) except for cycles 100 and 5000 (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, both attachments reported satisfactory retentive values during the 14600 cycles, the ‘Kerator’ attachment showed better retention than the new ‘Emi’ attachment. The initial retentive force of both attachments has gradually decreased. Clinical significance: Both attachment systems evaluated in this study can be used in clinical practice for implant-supported overdentures.

PDF Share
  1. Ortegón S, Thompson G, Agar JR, Taylor TD, Perdikis D.Retention forces of spherical attachments as a function of implant and matrix angulation in mandibular overdentures: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2009;101:231-238.
  2. Simon H.Y.R. Terminology for implant prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:539-543.
  3. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, et al. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Gerodontology [Internet]. Wiley; 2002 Jul;19(1):3-4.
  4. British Society for the Study of Prosthetic Dentistry. The York consensus statement on implant-supported overdentures. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2010;18:42.
  5. Sultana N, Bartlett DW, Suleiman M. Retention of implantsupported overdentures at different implant angulations: comparing Locator and ball attachments. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:1406-1410.
  6. Turk P, Geckili O, Turk Y, Gunay V, Bilgin T. In vitro comparison of the retentive properties of Ball and Locator attachments for implant overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:1106-1113.
  7. Srinivasan M, Schimmel M, Badoud I, Ammann P, Herrmann FR, Müller F. Influence of implant angulation and cyclic dislodging on the retentive force of two different overdenture attachments–an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:604-611.
  8. De Kok IJ, Cooper LF, Guckes AD, McGraw K, Wright RF, Barrero CJ, et al. Factors Influencing Removable Partial Denture Patient-Reported Outcomes of Quality of Life and Satisfaction: A Systematic Review. J Prosthodont. 2017;26:5-18.
  9. Büttel A, Bühler N, Marinello C. Locator or ball attachment: a guide for clinical decision making. Schweizer Monatsschrift fur Zahnmedizin= Revue mensuelle suisse d'odontostomatologie= Rivista mensile svizzera di odontologia e stomatologia. 2009;119(9):901-918.
  10. Cune M, van Kampen F, van der Bilt A, Bosman F. Patient satisfaction and preference with magnet, bar-clip, and ballsocket retained mandibular implantoverdentures: a crossover clinical trial. Int J Prosthodont 2005; 18: 99-105.
  11. Quirynen M, Alsaadi G, Pauwels M, Haffajee A, van Steenberghe D, Naert I. Microbiological and clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction for two treatment options in the edentulous lower jaw after 10 years of function. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:277-287.
  12. Nguyen C, Driscoll C, Romberg E. The effect of denture cleansing solutions on the retention of pink locator attachments after multiple pulls: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont 2010;19:226-230.
  13. Payne AG, Solomons YF. The prosthodontic maintenance requirements of mandibular mucosa- and implant-supported overdentures: a review of the literature. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13:238-243.
  14. Shayegh SS, Hakimaneh SM, Baghani MT, Shidfar S, Kashi FK, Zamanian A, et al. Fabrication of a Mandibular Implant- Supported Overdenture with a New Attachment System: A Review of Current Attachment Systems. Int J Prosthodont 2017;30:245-247.
  15. Takahashi T, Gonda T, Maeda Y. Effect of Attachment Type on Implant Strain in Maxillary Implant Overdentures: Comparison of Ball, Locator, and Magnet Attachments. Part
  16. Overdenture with Palate. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32:1308-1314.
  17. Kim SM, Choi JW, Jeon YC, et al. Comparison of changes in retentive force of three stud attachments for implant overdentures. J Adv Prosthodont. 2015;7:303-311.
  18. Naert I, Gizani S, Vuysteke M, Steenberghe D. A 5-year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patients satisfaction. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26:195-202.
  19. Evtimovska E, Masri R, Driscoll C, Romberg E. The Change in Retentive Values of Locator Attachments and Hader Clips over Time. Journal of Prosthodontics: Implant, Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry. 2009;18(6):479-483.
  20. Sadig W. A comparative in vitro study on the retention and stability of implant-supported overdentures. Quintessence Int 2009;40:313-319.
  21. Tabatabaian F, Alaie K, Seyedan K. Comparison of Three Attachments in Implant-Tissue Supported Overdentures. J Dent (Tehran). 2010;7:113-118.
  22. Chung KH, Chung CY, Cagna DR, Cronin RJ Jr. Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant overdentures. Journal of Prosthodont 2004;13:221-226.
  23. Tehini G, Baba NZ, Berberi A, Majzoub Z, Bassal H, Rifai K.Effect of Simulated Mastication on the Retention of Locator Attachments for Implant-Supported Overdentures: An In Vitro Pilot Study. J Prosthodont. 2017 Sep 15.
  24. Cakarer S, Can T, Yaltirik M, Keskin C. Complications associated with the ball, bar and Locator attachments for implantsupported overdentures. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011; 16:953-959.
  25. Scherer MD, McGlumphy EA, Seghi RR, Campagni WV. Comparison of retention and stability of two implant-retained overdentures based on implant location. J Prosthetdent 2014; 112:515-521.
  26. Kobayashi M, Srinivasan M, Ammann P, Perriard J, Ohkubo C, Müller F, et al. Effects of in vitro cyclic dislodging on retentive force and removal torque of three overdenture attachment systems. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;24:426-434.
  27. Abi Nader S, de Souza RF, Fortin D, De Koninck L, Fromentin O, Albuquerque Junior RF. Effect of simulated masticatory loading on the retention of stud attachments for implant overdentures. J Oral Rehabil 2011;38:157-164.
  28. 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;22:429-440.
  29. Kleis WK, Kämmerer PW, Hartmann S, Al-Nawas B, Wagner W. A comparison of three different attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: one-year report. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12:209-218.
  30. Wolf K, Ludwig K, Hartfil H, Kern M. Analysis of retention and wear of ball attachments. Quintessence Int 2009;40: 405-412.
  31. Walton JN, MacEntee MI, Glick N. One-year prosthetic outcomes with implant overdentures: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:391-98.
  32. Jensen C, Meijer HJA, Raghoebar GM, Kerdijk W, Cune MS.Implant-supported removable partial dentures in the mandible: A 3-16 year retrospective study. J Prosthodont Res 2017;61:98-105.
  33. You W, Masri R, Romberg E, Driscoll CF, You T. The effect of denture cleansing solutions on the retention of pink locator attachments after multiple pulls: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont 2011;20:405-412.
  34. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:121-132.
  35. Walton JN, Ruse ND. In vitro changes in clips and bars used to retain implant overdentures. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:482-486.
  36. Alsabeeha N, Swain M, Payne A. Clinical performance and material properties of single-implant overdenture attachment systems. Int J Prosthodont 2011;24:247-254.
  37. Lehmann K. Studies on the retention forces of snap-on attachments. Quintessence Dental Technology 1978;7:45-48.
  38. Pigozzo MN, Mesquita MF, Henriques GE, Vaz LG. The service life of implant-retained overdenture attachment systems. J Prosthet Dent 2009;102:209-218.
  39. Besimo CE, Guarneri A. In vitro retention force changes of prefabricated attachments for overdentures. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:671-678.
  40. Setz I, Engel I. Retention of prefabricated attachments for implant stabilized overdentures in the edentulous mandible: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:323-329.
  41. Al-Ghafli SA, Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Kang K. The in vitro effect of different implant angulations and cyclic dislodgement on the retentive properties of an overdenture attachment system. J Prosthet Dent 2009;102:140-147.
  42. Petropoulos VC, Mante FK. Comparison of retention and strain energies of stud attachments for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont 2011;20;286-293.
  43. Steiner M, Ludwig K, Kern M. Retention forces of a new implant-supported bar attachment system. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:1025-1026.
  44. Stephens GJ, di Vitale N, O'Sullivan E, McDonald A. The influence of interimplant divergence on the retention characteristics of locator attachments, a laboratory study. J Prosthodont 2014;23:467-475.
  45. Gamborena JI, Hazelton LR, NaBadalung D, Brudvik J. Retention of era direct overdenture attachments before and after fatigue loading. Int J Prosthodont 1997;10:123-130.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.