Retentive Properties of Two Stud Attachments with Polyetherketoneketone or Nylon Insert in Mandibular Implant Overdentures

Abstract

Within the limitations of this investigation, the attachment system with a PEKK insert indicated less abrasion and retention change than the attachment system with a nylon insert on both paralleled implants and axially tilted implants under 400,000 cyclic loadings and 1,080 insertion/removal cycles for 1 year.

In vitro retention force changes during cyclic dislodging of three novel attachment systems for implant overdentures with different implant angulations

“…In the present study, CM LOC presented the most consistent retentive forces out of the three tested attachments, even in extreme implant angulations, and was affected by the latter only after a very high number of cycles. Previous studies on this attachment, although limited to slightly tilted implants, also confirmed the consistency of retentive forces (Choi et al, ; Passia et al, ). The initial retentive force varied substantially, with Group 0° presenting double the retentive force than the other groups.…”

“…A limited number of studies have examined one of the latest attachments (Choi, Yun, Jeong, & Huh, 2018;Passia, Ghazal, & Kern, 2016), while other newer attachment systems on the market have not yet been evaluated. To date, however, no studies have examined and compared the performance of the latest attachment systems.…”

Five‐year study of mandibular overdentures on stud abutments: Clinical outcome, patient satisfaction and prosthetic maintenance—Influence of bone resorption and implant position

“…More retention loss was reported for a stud 2IOD compared to bar, ball and PEEK (polyether ether ketone) attachments in the presence of higher inter-implant angulations (Aroso et al, 2016;Choi, Yun, Jeong, & Huh, 2018;Kurtulus & Gurbulak, 2018;Srinivasan et al, 2016;Sultana, Bartlett, & Suleiman, 2017). Fatigue tests, simulating 5 years of denture function, did not produce wear in the metal stud abutments (Aroso et al, 2016).…”

“…Based on in vitro and in vivo research, the effect of inter‐implant angulation on retention and wear of a stud retained 2IOD is inconclusive (ELsyad, Hatem, Shawky, & Emera, ; Jabbour et al, ; Kobayashi et al, ; Kurtulus & Gurbulak, ; Stephens, di Vitale, O'Sullivan, & McDonald, ). More retention loss was reported for a stud 2IOD compared to bar, ball and PEEK (polyether ether ketone) attachments in the presence of higher inter‐implant angulations (Aroso et al, ; Choi, Yun, Jeong, & Huh, ; Kurtulus & Gurbulak, ; Srinivasan et al, ; Sultana, Bartlett, & Suleiman, ). Fatigue tests, simulating 5 years of denture function, did not produce wear in the metal stud abutments (Aroso et al, ).…”

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

“…An interesting investigation to juxtapose against the Hahnel et al 146 study was published by Choi et al 147 This research group performed an in vitro investigation to compare the retentive properties of an implant attachment system that incorporates a nylon insert (LOCATOR, Zest Anchor; Zest Dental Solutions) and an attachment with a polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) insert (CM LOC, Cendres+Metaux) on 2-implant mandibular overdentures during simulated masticatory loadings and insertion and removal cycles.…”