Effect of Denture Cleansing Solutions on the Retention of Locator Attachments Over Time

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate and compare the alterations in retention of three Locator attachments after immersion in various denture cleansers at defined time intervals. Materials and Methods Two implants were embedded in an acrylic block. Pink, blue, and clear Locator attachments (n = 10 for each subgroup) were immersed into three different cleansing solutions (Corega, Protefix and NaOCl) and tap water (control) at different time intervals that simulate 1 (T1), 6 (T2), and 12 (T3) months of clinical use. Universal testing machine set at a crosshead speed of 50 mm/min was used for pull‐out tests. After the immersion procedure, the peak force to dislodgement was recorded to demonstrate the changes in retention of Locator attachments. Data were analyzed using repeated‐measures ANOVA followed by Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) tests (α = .05). Results All denture cleansing solutions affected the retentive values of all Locator attachments at defined time intervals (F = 4.299, p = 0.001). NaOCl affected all groups significantly after 12‐month immersion time (p = 0.001). The least retention loss at all subgroups was observed in Corega for clear Locator attachments (106.17 ± 5.21 N). The difference in retention values for pink attachments were not statistically significant for tap water, Protefix and Corega immersion at all time intervals (p > 0.05). Following NaOCl (blue; 33.31 ± 4.72 N, clear; 52.3 ± 8.5 N), tap water decreased the retention value of blue (41.14 ± 3.93 N) and clear (76.72 ± 8.42 N) Locator attachments at T3. Corega caused the least retention loss to clear attachments at T1 (106.17 ± 3.55 N). Conclusion The retention of Locator attachments decreases over time after exposure to various denture cleansing solutions. As NaOCl significantly decreased the retentive values of all attachments, patients must be informed about that disadvantage. Also, tap water remarkably decreased retentive ability of all attachments. Periodic addition of an effervescent tablet into tap water may be recommended to patients that wear implant retained overdentures with Locator attachments.

Evaluation of Retention, Wear, and Maintenance of Attachment Systems for Single- or Two-Implant-Retained Mandibular Overdentures: A Systematic Review

“…Although mechanical stress is considered to be the main factor in wear and retention loss of AS, their varied and humid environments (saliva, cleansing products, mouthwashes) have been studied and show little impact on AS retention and wear ( Table 5 ) [ 22 , 26 , 40 , 50 , 51 ]. The main components of several brands of denture cleaners are sodium bicarbonate, sodium perborate, potassium monosulfate, citric acid and ETDA, and only a discoloration was observed on polymer RD with NaOCl solution [ 26 ].…”

“…The main components of several brands of denture cleaners are sodium bicarbonate, sodium perborate, potassium monosulfate, citric acid and ETDA, and only a discoloration was observed on polymer RD with NaOCl solution [ 26 ]. Moreover, NaOCl and sodium bicarbonate significantly affect the retention of Locator ® after 6-month [ 26 , 40 , 50 ] and after 12-month immersion time [ 26 , 50 , 51 ]. The only conclusion that can be drawn is not to immerse AS, especially those composed of polymer RD, in highly reactive chemical solutions (NaOCl) for a long time and to rinse them well after use.…”

Detection of the effects of the various denture cleansing methods on overdenture retentive attachments with a scanning electron microscope

“…The main difference in the present study is that the mean dislodgement values were recorded because the first pull showed the highest value, followed by a decrease after each pull. The other is that, according to the general recommendations of other similar studies, a total immersion time of 12 months was selected for this study 11,13,14 .…”

“…For implant-supported overdenture prostheses, various abutments and attachments are available for use. Many studies in literature have investigated the effect of various chemical denture-cleansing solutions on the retention of different overdenture attachments 4,[11][12][13][14] . However, no studies have been conducted on the effect of both mechanical and chemical denture cleansing methods on the retention of locator attachments.…”

Factors influencing retention and durability of attachments for overdentures – adverse effects of cleansings, pH, and temperature: A systematic review

“…Thus, overdentures must be cleaned daily to prevent the accumulation of microorganisms under their base mainly because this type of prosthesis is concave in relation to the residual ridge, which makes it impossible to clean it without removing it. Different methods can be used to clean dentures, such as mechanical, chemical, or a combination of both [ 10 , 11 ]. For the chemical method solutions such as sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) [ 7 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ], sodium bicarbonate-sodium perborate (SBSP) [ 11 , 12 ], sodium bicarbonate [ 11 , 12 ], and alkaline peroxides [ 7 , 10 , 13 ] are used.…”