Retention of maxillary implant overdenture bars of different designs

Williams, Brian H.; Ochiai, Kent T.; Hojo, Satoru; Nishimura, Robert N.; Caputo, Angelo A.

doi:10.1067/mpr.2001.120838

Cited by 82 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This may be attributed to the dominant mechanical retention by implant superstructure rather than physical retention in conventional denture without implant assessment. This is in accordance with Williams et al, [22] who concluded that; the results of the in vitro study suggest that the precise selection and placement of attachments may affect the clinical success of maxillary implant-retained overdentures.…”

Section: Group II (Mini-dentalsupporting

confidence: 81%

The Influence of Palatal Coverage on the Retention Force and Fatigue Resistance of Mini Dental Implant Maxillary Overdenture

Mekawy¹,

Khalifa²

2016

J Oral Hyg Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: evaluation and comparison of the influence of palatal coverage on the retention force and fatigue resistance of attachment system of mini dental implant (MDIs) overdenture. Materials and methods:heat-cured polymethylmethacrylate resin maxillary acrylic resin models were used for this study. Five 2.5 × 13 mm dummy mini-dental implants with O-ring attachment were placed parallel to each other. Ten palateless implant retained overdenture, and ten full coverage implant retained overdenture were constructed on the models. Both of them, retention and cyclic fatigue tests of each overdenture were measured using BENDAO tools of the universal testing machine and average reading was calculated.Result: (Group I) mini-dental implant overdenture with palatal coverage recorded higher retention means value (25.55 ± 2.17 N) than (group II) mini-dental implant overdenture without palatal coverage (palate-less overdenture) (24.215 ± 3.64 N). the cyclic fatigue test for the (group I) mini-dental implant overdenture with palatal coverage Showed that the retention decreased significantly with time as indicated by ANOVA test (p < 0.05), While for (group II) mini-dental implant overdenture without palatal coverage (palate-less overdenture) was found that the retention was insignificant decrease in the first month; then it significantly decrease in the remaining periods of the study as indicated by ANOVA test (p < 0.05). Conclusion:Within the limitations of this in vitro study it can be concluded that the mini-dental implant overdenture with palatal coverage showed superior retentive properties when compared with mini-dental implant overdenture without palatal coverage (palate-less overdenture). Both study groups showed a reduction in retention after cyclic fatigue period.

show abstract

Section: Group II (Mini-dentalsupporting

confidence: 81%

The Influence of Palatal Coverage on the Retention Force and Fatigue Resistance of Mini Dental Implant Maxillary Overdenture

Mekawy¹,

Khalifa²

2016

J Oral Hyg Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(20) These retention forces are similar to the results of ball attachments (21) and approximates the range measured for other bar systems using POM clips. (15,22) With other studies, much higher values of 20 N up to 35 N were reached using POM or metal clips on bars (14,23) So, differences of retention.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Different Bar Attachment and Clip Materials on Retention Force for Mandibular Implant Supported Overdentures (An Invitro Study)

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: to evaluate the effect of bar and clip attachment systems with different materials on retention forces for two implant supported mandibular over dentures after wear simulation. Materials and methods: An edentulous mandibular model was constructed incorporating 2 parallel implants placed in the canine regions. Attachments were embedded in ametal-reinforced experimental over denture designed to be dislodged from the model by a universaltesting machine. Tensile dislodging force was applied to the overdenture at a cross-head speed of 50 mm/min. Four over dentures were constructed for the attachment systems. The attachments evaluated were metal bar with clip from polyoxymethylene (POM), metal bar with clip from polyetheretherketon (PEEK), (PEEK) bar with (POM) clip and(PEEK) barwith (PEEK) clip. Peak loadto-dislodgement was measured. Retention strength values (N) were recorded initially and after 270, 540, 810 and 1080 cycles of insertion and removal simulating 0, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months of denture using repictively. Repeated measure ANOVA was used to compare between more than two groups for dependent samples while One-way ANOVA was used to compare between more than two groups for independent samples. The significance level was set at P ≤ 0.

show abstract

“…In recent years, growing interest in implantsupported dentures has fuelled many studies on the retention characteristics of attachments used for implant-supported dentures 13,14) . However, because of low cost and inadequate remaining alveolar bone, traditional RPDs are still the preferred treatment choice for many patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retention behaviors of different attachment systems: Precious versus nonprecious, precision versus semi-precision

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aims of this study were to investigate the retention force changes of different attachment systems after 10,000 insertion-separation cycles and the difference in retention force between precious and non-precious materials of the same attachment system. Four types of attachments (Ball, Rod, M3 stud, and AP-Piccolino), produced using both precious and non-precious metal alloys, were tested (n=6). Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey's multiple comparison test, and t-test at a significance level of p≤0.05. Retention forces of all attachment types were significantly decreased after 10,000 insertion-separation cycles (p≤0.05). Rod and M3 attachment systems showed an initial increase in retention force, then an eventual decrease. At the end of the test, precious types of M3 and AP-Piccolino attachments had significantly higher retention force values than their non-precious ones (p≤0.05). Friction between non-precious attachment parts resulted in a higher retention loss than precious metal alloys.

show abstract

Retention of maxillary implant overdenture bars of different designs

Cited by 82 publications

References 4 publications

The Influence of Palatal Coverage on the Retention Force and Fatigue Resistance of Mini Dental Implant Maxillary Overdenture

The Influence of Palatal Coverage on the Retention Force and Fatigue Resistance of Mini Dental Implant Maxillary Overdenture

Effect of Different Bar Attachment and Clip Materials on Retention Force for Mandibular Implant Supported Overdentures (An Invitro Study)

Retention behaviors of different attachment systems: Precious versus nonprecious, precision versus semi-precision

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About