Advertisement
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Freedom of rotation of selected overdenture attachments: An in vitro study

      Statement of problem

      Attachments for mandibular overdentures may not allow for adequate freedom of rotation.

      Purpose

      The purpose of this study was to subject 3 commonly used stud types of resilient attachments to rotation and to measure and compare the degree of rotation that occurs before the attachments bind.

      Material and methods

      Three stud attachments (ERA, Locator Extended Range, O-Ring System) with their corresponding metal housings were evaluated, first for a single implant system and secondly for a 2-attachment parallel implant system for the mandibular arch. Both the manufacturers' most and least retentive components were tested in each system. In the Locator system, the medium retention (3 lbs) for the standard is the most retentive of the extended range. A total of 60 test specimens, 5 per group, were fabricated. The attachments were connected to a 115-mm rod and attached to a testing device composed of a base, implant analogs, and a vertical plate holding graph paper. A free-sliding plastic block, which supported the metal rod parallel to the base, was removed to release the rod. The distance the rod fell was photographed and input into a computer with software designed to measure linear movement. Three-way ANOVA with heteroscedasticity consistent standard errors was used for data analyses (α=.05).

      Results

      Significant differences found among the most retentive components showed that the Locator had a greater freedom of rotation than the ERA (P=.001). The most retentive components in all systems showed that 1 attachment had a greater freedom of rotation than 2 (P=.005). When testing the least retentive components, all systems were significantly different (P<.003), with the freedom of rotation ranking being O-Ring System > Locator Extended Range > ERA. For all 3 systems, the least retentive components showed the most freedom (P≤.008).

      Conclusions

      The least retentive components offer greater rotation than the most retentive components for all attachment systems tested and for both single and double attachments. Using the most retentive components, the Locator Extended Range attachment allows greater rotation than does the ERA for both single and double attachments. Using the least retentive components, the ORS attachment allows the most rotation and ERA the least for both single and double attachments. Using the most retentive components, one attachment allows greater rotation than does 2 attachments for the attachment systems evaluated.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Hobkirk JA
        • Abdel-Latif HH
        • Howlett J
        • Welfare R
        • Moles DR
        Prosthetic treatment time and satisfaction of edentulous patients treated with conventional or implant-stabilized complete mandibular dentures: a case-control study (part 2).
        Int J Prosthodont. 2009; 22: 13-19
        • Boerrigter EM
        • Stegenga B
        • Raghoebar GM
        Patient satisfaction and chewing ability with implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a comparison with new complete dentures with or without preprosthetic surgery.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995; 53: 1167-1173
        • Eckert SE
        • Laney WR
        Patient evaluation and prosthodontic treatment planning forosseointegrated implants.
        Dent Clin North Am. 1989; 33: 599-618
        • Feine JS
        • Carlsson GE
        • Awad MA
        • Chehade A
        • Duncan WJ
        • Gizani S
        • et al.
        The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients.
        Montreal, Quebec, May 24-25, 2002 Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002; 17: 601-602
        • Cordioli G
        • Majzoub Z
        • Castagna S
        Mandibular overdentures anchored to single implants: a five-year prospective study.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1997; 78: 159-165
        • Walton JN
        • Glick N
        • MacEntee MI
        A randomized clinical trial comparing patient satisfaction and prosthetic outcomes with mandibular overdentures retained by one or two implants.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2009; 22: 331-339
        • Daas M
        • Dubois G
        • Bonnet AS
        A complete finite element model of a mandibular implant-retained overdenture with two implants: comparison between rigid and resilient attachment configurations.
        Med Eng Phys. 2008; 30: 218-225
        • Sadowsky SJ
        • Caputo AA
        Effect of anchorage systems and extension base contact on load transfer with mandibular implant-retained overdentures.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 84: 327-334
        • Skalak R
        Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prostheses.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1983; 49: 843-848
        • Rangert B
        • Jemt T
        • Jörneus L
        Forces and Moments on Brånemark Implants.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1989; 4: 241-247
        • Walton JN
        • Mac Entee MI
        Problems with prostheses on implants: A retrospective study.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1994; 71: 283-288
        • Hemmings KW
        • Schmitt A
        • Zarb GA
        Complications and maintenance requirements for fixed prostheses and overdentures in the edentulous mandible: a 5-year report.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1994; 9: 191-196
        • Breeding LC
        • Dixon DL
        • Smitt S
        The effect of simulated function on the retention of bar-clip retained removable prostheses.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1996; 75: 570-573
        • Sennerby L
        • Carlsson GE
        • Bergman B
        Mandibular bone resorption in patients treated with tissue-integrated prostheses and in complete-denture wearers.
        Acta Odontol Scand. 1988; 46: 135-140
        • Kordatzis K
        • Wright PS
        • Meijer HJ
        Posterior mandibular residual ridge resorption in patients with conventional dentures and implant overdentures.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003; 18: 447-452
        • Jacobs R
        • Schotte A
        • van Steenberghe D
        • Quirynen M
        • Naert I
        Posterior jaw bone resorption in osseointegrated implant-supported overdentures.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 1992; 3: 63-70
        • Wright PS
        • Glantz P
        • Randow K
        The effects of fixed and removable implant-stabilised prostheses on posterior mandibular residual ridge resorption.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002; 13: 169-174
        • Trakas T
        • Michalakis K
        • Hirayama H
        Attachment systems for implant retained overdentures: a literature review.
        Implant Dent. 2006; 15: 24-34
        • Walton JN
        • Huizinga SC
        • Peck CC
        Implant angulation: a measurement technique, implant overdenture maintenance, and the influence of surgical experience.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2001; 14: 523-530
        • Alsabeeha NHM
        • Payne AGT
        • Swain MV
        Attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: a review of in vitro investigations on retention and wear features.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2009; 22: 429-440
        • Gamborena JI
        • Hazelton LR
        • NaBadalung D
        • Brudvik J
        Retention of ERA direct overdenture attachments before and after fatigue loading.
        Int J Prosthodont. 1997; 10: 123-130
        • Walton JN
        In vitro changes in clips and bar to retain overdenture.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1995; 74: 482-486
        • Petropoulos VC
        • Smith W
        Maximum dislodging forces of implant overdenture stud attachments.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002; 17: 526-535
        • Rutkunas V
        • Mizutani H
        • Takahashi H
        Influence of attachment wear on retention of mandibular overdenture.
        J Oral Rehabil. 2007; 34: 41-51
        • Federick DR
        • Caputo AA
        Effects of overdenture retention designs and implant orientations on load transfer characteristics.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1996; 76: 624-632
        • Ortegón SM
        • Thompson GA
        • Agar JR
        • Taylor TD
        • Perdikis D
        Retention forces of spherical attachments as a function of implant and matrix angulation in mandibular overdentures: an in vitro study.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2009; 101: 231-238
        • Kronstrom M
        • Davis B
        • Loney R
        • Gerrow J
        • Hollender L
        A prospective randomized study on the immediate loading of mandibular overdentures supported by one or two implants: a 12-month follow-up report.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010; 25: 181-188
        • Setz JM
        • Wright PS
        • Ferman AM
        Effects of attachment type on the mobility of implant- stabilized overdentures–an in vitro study.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2000; 13: 494-499
        • Hayes AF
        • Cai L
        Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: an introduction and software implementation.
        Behav Res Methods Instrum. 2007; 37: 709-722