The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Comparison of Attachment Types in Maxillary Implant-assisted Obturators using Digital Image Correlation Analysis

Gurmehr Baghiana, V Manju, MP Hariprasad, Hrishikesh G Menon, Shammo Dutta, Vinod Kumar Gopal, SS Deepthy

Keywords : Bar and clip attachment, Digital Image Correlation, Implant-assisted obturators, Locator attachment

Citation Information : Baghiana G, Manju V, Hariprasad M, Menon HG, Dutta S, Gopal VK, Deepthy S. Comparison of Attachment Types in Maxillary Implant-assisted Obturators using Digital Image Correlation Analysis. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (7):695-702.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3378

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 10-11-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the stress on the implant and to assess the denture displacement for locator and bar and clip attachment types in implant-assisted obturators. Materials and methods: A maxillary edentulous experimental model with a maxillectomy defect was made along with an opposing edentulous mandibular model with self-cure acrylic. Two endosseous implants were placed in the maxillary model. Corresponding obturator complete denture was fabricated for the maxillary model and a complete denture for the mandibular. The attachments were positioned on the implants in maxillary model, and their sleeve/clip was placed on intaglio surface of the dentures. The mounted articulator was placed on a loading apparatus, and force was incrementally applied to it. The strain and displacement for both the attachment types were measured and compared using Digital Image Correlation (DIC). Results: Locator attachment showed the least stress and minimal displacement as compared to bar and clip attachment. Conclusion: The stresses around the implants and displacement of the obturator are affected by the attachment type used. It was found that bar and clip (splinted) showed the maximum stresses around the implant and maximum denture displacement. Locator attachment is the better choice over bar and clip because of its additional retentive features. Clinical significance: The advantage of using DIC over the conventional strain gauge analysis is that a full-field data of displacement and strain can be obtained instead of getting a mean value on the small surface where the strain gauge is positioned.

PDF Share
  1. Omo J, Sede M, Enabulele J. Prosthetic rehabilitation of patients with maxillary defects in a Nigerian Tertiary Hospital. Ann Med Health Sci Res 2014;4(4):630–633. DOI: 10.4103/2141-9248.139352.
  2. Bagis B, Aydoğan E, Hasanreisoğlu U. Rehabilitation of a congenital palatal defect with a modified technique: a case report. Cases J 2008;1(1):39. DOI: 10.1186/1757-1626-1-39.
  3. Keyf F. Obturator prostheses for hemimaxillectomy patients. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28(9):821–829. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00754.x.
  4. Parel SM, Branemark PI, Jansson T. Osseointegration in maxillofacial prosthetics. Part I: Intraoral applications. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55(4): 490–494. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(86)90184-8.
  5. Takahashi T, Gonda T, Tomita A, et al. Effect of attachment type on implant strain in maxillary implant overdentures: comparison of ball, locator, and magnet attachments. Part 2: Palateless dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018;33(2):357–364. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.6157.
  6. Roumanas ED, Nishimura RD, Davis BK, et al. Clinical evaluation of implants retaining edentulous maxillary obturator prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77(2):184–190. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(97)70233-6.
  7. Amer MM, Rashad HA, Abdallah S. Stress distribution of implant retained obturators using different types of attachments: A three dimensional finite element analysis. Tanta Dent J 2015;12:S30–S40. DOI:
  8. Zou D, Wu Y, Huang W, et al. A 3-year prospective clinical study of telescopic crown, bar, and locator attachments for removable four implant–supported maxillary overdentures. Int J Prosthodont 2013;26:566–573. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.3485.
  9. Elsyad M, Dayekh M, Khalifa A. Locator versus bar attachment effect on the retention and stability of implant-retained maxillary overdenture: An in vitro study. J Prosthodont Off J Am Coll Prosthodont 2017;28(2):e627–e636. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12608.
  10. Jörnéus L, Jemt T, Carlsson L. Loads and designs of screw joints for single crowns supported by osseointegrated implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7(3):353–359. PMID: 1289261.
  11. Aramany MA. Basic principles of obturator design for partially edentulous patients. Part I: Classification. J Prosthet Dent 1978; 40(5): 554–557. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(78)90092-6.
  12. Lyons KM, Beumer J, Caputo AA. Abutment load transfer by removable partial denture obturator frameworks in different acquired maxillary defects. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94(3):281–288. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.06.005.
  13. Lago L, Rilo B, Fernández-Formoso N, et al. A new approach to the use of osseointegrated implants in palate obturator. J Craniofac Surg 2016;27(8):2162–2163. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000003110.
  14. Beyabanaki E, Alikhasi M. Restoring a partial maxillectomy patient by an implant-supported obturator on two implants: A case report. J Dent Tehran Iran 2018;15(3):187–192. PMCID: PMC6079180.
  15. Schmidt BL, Pogrel MA, Young CW, et al. Reconstruction of extensive maxillary defects using zygomaticus implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Off J Am Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;62(9 Suppl 2):82–89. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2004.06.027.
  16. 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 1. Overdenture with palate. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32(6):1308–1314. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.5737.
  17. Hariprasad MP, Ramesh K. Analysis of contact zones from whole field isochromatics using reflection photoelasticity. Opt Lasers Eng 2018;105:86–92. DOI:
  18. Hariprasad MP, Ramesh K. Contact Zone Evaluation of Dental Implants Using Digital Photoelasticity. In: Korach CS, Tekalur SA, Zavattieri P, editors. Mechanics of Biological Systems and Materials, Volume 6 [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017 [cited 2022 Mar 28]. p. 39–43. (Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series). Available from:
  19. Kumar P, Hariprasad MP, Menon A, et al. Experimental study of dry stone masonry walls using digital reflection photoelasticity. Strain 2020;31;56:e12372. DOI:
  20. Hariprasad MP, Shanmugam B, Ramesh K, et al. Evolution of suitable photoelastic model in implant dentistry. In: 9th International Symposium on Advanced Science and Technology in Experimental Mechanics, New Delhi, India, 2014.
  21. Ramesh K, Hariprasad MP, Shanmugam B. Digital photoelastic analysis applied to implant dentistry. Opt Lasers Eng 2016;87:204–213. DOI:
  22. Hariprasad MP, Ramesh K, Prabhune BC. Evaluation of conformal and non-conformal contact parameters using digital photoelasticity. Exp Mech 2018;58(8):1249–1263. DOI:
  23. Goiato MC, Ribeiro P do P, Pellizzer EP, et al. Photoelastic analysis to compare implant-retained and conventional obturator dentures. J Biomed Opt 2012;17(6):061203. DOI: 10.1117/1.JBO.17.6.061203.
  24. Karl M, Wichmann MG, Winter W, et al. Influence of fixation mode and superstructure span upon strain development of implant fixed partial dentures. J Prosthodont Off J Am Coll Prosthodont. 2008 Jan;17(1):3–8.
  25. Tiossi R, Lin L, Rodrigues RCS, Heo YC, Conrad HJ, de Mattos M da GC, et al. Digital image correlation analysis of the load transfer by implant-supported restorations. J Biomech 2011;44(6):1008–1013. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00236.x.
  26. Fontijn-Tekampl E, Slagter AP, van't Hof MA, et al. Bite forces with mandibular implant-retained overdentures. J Dent Res 1998;77(10):1832–1839. DOI: 10.1177/00220345980770101101.
  27. Flanagan D. Bite force and dental implant treatment: a short review. Med Devices Auckl NZ 2017;10:141–148. DOI: 10.2147/MDER.S130314.
  28. Jiang MY, Wen J, Xu SS, et al. [Three-dimensional finite element analysis of four-implants supported mandibular overdentures using two different attachments]. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi Zhonghua Kouqiang Yixue Zazhi Chin J Stomatol 2019;54(1):41–45. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1002-0098.2019.01.008.
  29. Zou D, Wu Y, Huang W, et al. A 3-year prospective clinical study of telescopic crown, bar, and locator attachments for removable four implant-supported maxillary overdentures. Int J Prosthodont 2013;26(6):566–573. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.3485.
  30. Manju V, Sreelal T. Mandibular implant-supported overdenture: an in vitro comparison of ball, bar, and magnetic attachments. J Oral Implantol 2013;39(3):302–307. DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00050.
  31. Naert I, Alsaadi G, Quirynen M. Prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction with two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures: A 10-year randomized clinical study. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17(4):401–410. PMID: 15382775.
  32. Goiato MC, Matheus HR, de Medeiros RA, et al. A photoelastic and strain gauge comparison of two attachments for obturator prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117(5):685–689. DOI:
  33. Savabi O, Nejatidanesh F, Yordshahian F. Retention of implant-supported overdenture with bar/clip and stud attachment designs. J Oral Implantol 2013;39(2):140–147. DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00016.
  34. Lian M, Zhao K, Wang F, et al. Stud vs bar attachments for maxillary four-implant-supported overdentures: 3- to 9-year results from a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019;34(4):936–946. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.7224.
  35. Anas El-Wegoud M, Fayyad A, Kaddah A, et al. Bar versus ball attachments for implant-supported overdentures in complete edentulism: A systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018; 20(2):243–250. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12551.
  36. Leão RS, Moraes SLD, Vasconcelos BCE, et al. Splinted and unsplinted overdenture attachment systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Rehabil 2018;45(8):647–656. DOI: 10.1111/joor.12651.
  37. Kappel S, Giannakopoulos NN, Eberhard L, et al. Immediate loading of dental implants in edentulous mandibles by use of Locator® attachments or Dolder® Bars: Two-year results from a prospective randomized clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016;18(4):752–761. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12349.
  38. Krennmair G, Seemann R, Fazekas A, et al. Patient preference and satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or locator attachments: a crossover clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 Dec;27(6):1560–1568. PMID: 23189311.
  39. Prasad DK, Prasad DA, Buch M. Selection of attachment systems in fabricating an implant supported overdenture. J Dent Implants 2014;4(2):176–181. DOI: 10.4103/0974-6781.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.