Overdenture locator attachments for atrophic mandible

Mahajan, Neerja; Thakkur, Rahul K.

doi:10.4103/0976-237x.123060

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[ 8 ] Progressively, attachments were much popular due to their inherent ability to enhance retention and stability of the complete denture. [ 9 ] The absolute retentive capacity of overdenture attachments was reported by Wismeijer et al . (1999)[ 10 ] and Epstein et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the attachments used in implant-supported overdentures

Chaware¹,

Thakkar²

2020

J Indian Prosthodont Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To evaluate the survival rate, tissue response, and patient satisfaction of different attachments used in implant overdenture. Settings and Design: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: Electronic search of peer-review articles published between 2001 and 2019 assessing the attachments used for implant-supported overdentures was done according to PRISMA Guidelies. The review evaluated sixteen articles related to survival of the attachments, the reaction of the soft and hard tissues along with repair and maintenance of the attachments, and overall performance of the overdenture attachments. Statistical Analysis Used: There is statistically significant heterogeneity (Q =374.7403, df = 15, and P < 0.0001). The statistics of fixed-effect model reported an MD of − 0.0880 (95% CI = −0.1536; 0.0225). Result: The review evaluated the 16 articles that met with the inclusion and search criteria. The studies were the combination of bar and ball attachments and their subtypes, magnetic and bar attachments, and locator in combination with other attachments. The meta-analysis of combined 16 studies reported acceptable heterogeneity among 16 studies (I 2 = 96%) and reported to be statistically significant ( P < 0.01). Conclusion: The survival rate of attachments was in the range of 95.8%–97.5% for bar, 96.2%–100% for ball, 90%–92% for magnet and locator attachments were in the range of 97% after a mean follow-up period of 3 years. The bar attachments reported moderate tissue reaction in the form of mucosal changes, gingival inflammation, and bone resorption. The locator attachments require higher maintenance and repair. The magnetic attachments produce higher bone resorption and readily displace under functional force. Patient satisfaction and compliance was higher for ball, locator, and bar attachments as well as low for magnetic attachment. Thus, the ball and locator attachments excellently perform in terms of survival rate, tissue response, and patient satisfaction.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the attachments used in implant-supported overdentures

Chaware¹,

Thakkar²

2020

J Indian Prosthodont Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One therapeutic approach directed at improving oral function in the elderly is the use of implant-supported over denture (ISOD). [1]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retention and patient satisfaction with bar-clip, ball and socket and kerator attachments in mandibular implant overdenture treatment: An in vivo study

Varshney

Aggarwal

Kumar

et al. 2019

J Indian Prosthodont Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:The aim of this in vivo study was to evaluate and compare the retention and patient satisfaction in implant supported mandibular overdenture with three different attachment system.Materials and Methods:After evaluation of prosthetic space, fifteen edentulous subjects received two implants in the inter-foramina region of the mandible and were divided into 3 groups with 5 subjects each, delayed loading protocol was followed in all the patients. The retention force and satisfaction level with the attachments at baseline and after 6 months was measured in a standardised way using retentive device and VAS questionnaire. The study was based on evaluation of retention and patient satisfaction. 15 subjects were included in the study. The results obtained were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA test, and multiple comparisons were carried out using the Bonferroni tests.Results:At the end of six months, the retention force and satisfaction level was higher in Group 3 (Kerator attachment) as compared to Group 1 (ball and socket attachment) and Group 2 (bar and clip attachment) and patient satisfaction was equal in groups 1, 2 and 3 but the total number of interventions is significantly higher in the attachment bar. Analysis of variance with repeated measures showed significant differences in retention force among the three attachment types.Conclusion:(1) Group 3 (kerator attachment) exhibit higher retentive capacities than Group 1 (ball and socket attachment) and Group 2 (bar and clip attachment). (2) patient satisfaction was higher in Group 3 (Kerator attachment) in compare to Group 1 (ball and socket attachment) and Group 2 (bar and clip attachment).

show abstract

“…Besides, locator attachment delivers greater patient satisfaction by giving a comfortable and stable prosthesis that provides better function. This particular attachment system is relatively new as compared to the bar, ball and magnetic attachments (9) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Magnetic and Locator Attachments on Strain Around Implants Retaining Mandibular Overdenture: An in Vitro Study

Fayyad

2017

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: This in-vitro strain gauge study was conducted to compare between magnetic and locator attachments regarding strain induced around two implants supporting a mandibular overdenture. Methodology: The study was performed on acrylic models of a completely edentulous mandibular arch with two implants installed bilaterally at the canine areas. The strain induced around the implants was studied during unilateral and bilateral loading at the first molar area using a universal testing machine. Results: The results of this study showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the two studied groups during unilateral loading with higher values in the locator attachment group while during bilateral loading there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups but with higher micro-strain values for the magnetic attachment group Conclusion: Within the limitation of this in-vitro study, it could be conclude that the attachment type could have an effect on the amount of load that will be transmitted to the implants supporting an over denture. Clinical studies are required to evaluate the effect of type of attachment on periimplant crestal alveolar bone loss and correlate it with the results of the current study.

show abstract

Overdenture locator attachments for atrophic mandible

Cited by 5 publications

References 4 publications

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the attachments used in implant-supported overdentures

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the attachments used in implant-supported overdentures

Retention and patient satisfaction with bar-clip, ball and socket and kerator attachments in mandibular implant overdenture treatment: An in vivo study

The Effect of Magnetic and Locator Attachments on Strain Around Implants Retaining Mandibular Overdenture: An in Vitro Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About