Effect of Labial Implant Inclination on the Retention and Stability of Different Resilient Stud Attachments for Mandibular Implant Overdentures: An In vitro Study

ELsyad, Moustafa Abdou; Emera, Radwa Mohsen Kamal; Ibrahim, Abdullah M

doi:10.11607/jomi.6789

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In agreement with our finding, Sultana and colleagues 45 found increased initial retention for locator retained mandibular overdentures than for ball retained overdentures. Although implant inclination was reported to adverse effects the retention and stability of the prosthesis retained by locator attachment, 30,46,47 the correction of distal inclination of posterior implants and labial inclination of anterior implants by using the angled abutments achieved a parallel path of insertion/ removal of the definitive prosthesis which enhances the retention and stability of locator attachments. In line with this explanation, another study 48 reported that with a parallel orientation of the implants, the locator retention may exceed bar and metal clip retention.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This may be attributed to the increased frictional contact of nylon flanges with locator abutment, which comes from a dimensional misfit between the slightly oversized nylon male insert and the smaller diameter of the inner ring of the female abutment. This frictional contact together with increased chewing ability of LOD accelerates wear of the nylon inserts, causes increased retention loss, 30,47 and consequently increases the number of the nylon insert replacements. In line with these findings, Krennmair and colleagues, 51 in a cross-over study, found that the locator attachments require more post insertion aftercare (activation of retention) than the ball anchors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Angled ball and locator attachments for immediate loaded inclined implants used to retain maxillary overdentures: A cross over study of patient satisfaction and oral health related quality of life

Aboelez

Elezz

Abdraboh

et al. 2022

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The aim of this was to compare the influence of two different angulated abutment designs on patient satisfaction, oral health-related quality of life, and prosthetic aspects of implant-supported maxillary overdentures. Materials and Methods:For this cross-over study, 18 patients with completely edentulous maxillary ridges opposing implant-retained mandibular overdentures received 4 implants between the maxillary sinuses using computer-guided surgery. The anterior implants were installed at canine/lateral incisor areas and inclined 15 labially. The posterior implants were inserted just anterior to the maxillary sinuses and inclined 15o distally. Eight patients received maxillary overdentures retained by angled ball attachment (ball overdenture [BOD]) and angled locator attachment in random order. After 6 months, patients indicated satisfaction with their prosthesis using a visual analog scale (VAS), and oral health impact profile (OHIP-14). Moreover, postinsertion prosthodontic maintenance and complications were recorded for both attachments. Comparisons of patient satisfaction and prosthetic complications between groups were performed using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs test and the McNemar test, respectively.Results: Locator overdenture (LOD) recorded significantly higher scores than the BOD group regarding all the VAS questions except for ease of cleaning (p < 0.007).LOD recorded significantly higher patient satisfaction regarding the pronunciation of sounds (p = 0.009), painful aching (p = 0.018), feeling tense (p = 0.011), unsatisfactory diet (p = 0.013), irritability with people (p = 0.005), and life in general (p = 0.004). The most common complications were matrix activation/renewal (n = 34). BOD showed a significantly higher incidence of attachment loosening (p = 0.002), and teeth fracture (p = 0.049) than LOD. LOD showed a significantly higher incidence of attachment wear and replacement than BOD (p <0.001). There was no difference between groups regarding soft tissue complications. Conclusion:Within the limitations of this study, and in terms of improved patientcentered outcomes, angled locator attachments are recommended to retain maxillary implant overdentures opposed by implant retained mandibular overdentures at it was

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Angled ball and locator attachments for immediate loaded inclined implants used to retain maxillary overdentures: A cross over study of patient satisfaction and oral health related quality of life

Aboelez

Elezz

Abdraboh

et al. 2022

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, the retention and stability are significantly reduced during axial and non-axial dislodging forces. In line with this explanation, Elsyad et al 52 found that moderate labial implant inclination (10˚ and 20˚) negatively affects retention and stability of locator overdentures. Consequently, the reduced retention and stability can minimize chewing efficiency.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Locator vs telescopic crown attachments for maxillary implant overdenture. A within-subject study of chewing efficiency and maximum bite force

Helmy

Elsokkary

2021

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: This within-subject study report to investigate masticatory efficiency and maximum bite force of Locator and telescopic crown attachments used to retain maxillary implant overdentures.Materials and methods: Six edentulous patients (3 males and 3 females) received 4 implants in the anterior maxillary region between the maxillary sinuses using a standardized 2 stage surgical approach. Six months after osseointegration, the implants were loaded either by Locator or telescopic maxillary overdentures in a cross-over study design. Masticatory efficiency was performed using the 2-colored gum mixing ability test. The gum was chewed for 5, 10, 20, 30, and 50 cycles, and the images of the chewed gum were analyzed using a Photoshop program to calculate the unmixed fraction (UF). Also, maximum bite force was evaluated using a bite-force transducer. Chewing efficiency and maximum bite forces were evaluated 3 months after wearing each overdenture. Results:The success rate was 100% in both groups. There was a trend for a decrease in UF (ie improved masticatory efficiency) with the increase in the number of masticatory cycles. Telescopic maxillary overdentures showed significantly lower UF (ie higher masticatory efficiency) and higher maximum bite force than Locator maxillary overdentures Conclusion: Telescopic attachments are recommended for maxillary implant overdentures as it had improved masticatory efficiency and maximum bite force than Locator attachments

show abstract

“…This method ensures vertical dislodging of the overdenture as one unit without rotation. This method was designed and verified for accuracy in several previous in vitro studies for maxillary and mandibular overdentures [24][25][26]31,35,[37][38][39] . Vertical dislodging force was exerted at 50mm/min speed to simulate the velocity of overdenture removal from the tissue during chewing as reported in previous studies 37,40 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peri-implant strain with locator and bar attachment during dislodging of maxillary implant overdenture. A comparative invitro study

Mohamed

Helmy

2021

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate Peri-implant strain with locator and bar attachment during dislodging of maxillary implant overdenture Materials and methods: Four implants were inserted in completely edentulous acrylic maxillary model in canine and premolar areas. Experimental maxillary overdentures with 4 metal hooks were constructed and connected the implants with bar attachments (group I) or locator attachment (group 2). Two strain gauges were bonded at buccal and palatal surface of each implant. Micro strains were measured at buccal and palatal surface of canine and premolar implants during the vertical dislodging of the overdenture. Dislodging was made by chains connected at one end to the metal hooks and to a universal testing machine at the other end. Results: For canine and premolar implants, locator attachment showed significant higher microstrain values than bar attachments at buccal and palatal gauge positions. For bar group, no difference between buccal and palatal strain gauge positions was detected. However, for locator attachments, buccal strain gauges demonstrated significant higher strain than palatal gauges. For buccal and palatal strain gauges, canine implants showed higher strains than premolar implants for both groups Conclusion: Within the limitation of this in vitro study, could be concluded that bar attachments may be recommended to retain maxillary implant overdentures than locator attachments in terms of reduced peri-implant stresses that occur during the denture dislodgment which may lead to increased bone resorption around the implants.

show abstract

Effect of Labial Implant Inclination on the Retention and Stability of Different Resilient Stud Attachments for Mandibular Implant Overdentures: An In vitro Study

Cited by 9 publications

References 22 publications

Angled ball and locator attachments for immediate loaded inclined implants used to retain maxillary overdentures: A cross over study of patient satisfaction and oral health related quality of life

Angled ball and locator attachments for immediate loaded inclined implants used to retain maxillary overdentures: A cross over study of patient satisfaction and oral health related quality of life

Locator vs telescopic crown attachments for maxillary implant overdenture. A within-subject study of chewing efficiency and maximum bite force

Peri-implant strain with locator and bar attachment during dislodging of maxillary implant overdenture. A comparative invitro study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About