Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Research and Education|Articles in Press

Effect of spatial arrangement and clinical service lifetime simulation on the retention of magnetic units used in implant-anchored orbital prostheses


      Statement of problem

      Evidence for the optimal spatial arrangement of magnetic attachments in implant-supported orbital prostheses is lacking.


      The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the effect of 6 different spatial arrangements on the retentive force of magnetic attachments following the in vitro simulation of clinical service by insertion-removal test cycles and the contribution of artificial aging to the morphological alterations induced on the magnetic surfaces.

      Material and methods

      Ni-Cu-Ni plated disk-shaped neodymium (Nd) magnetic units (d=5 mm, h=1.6 mm) were secured on leveled (50×50×5 mm, n=3) and angled (40×45×40 mm, interior angle=90 degrees, n=3) pairs of test panels in 6 different spatial arrangements: triangular_leveled (TL), triangular_angled (TA), square_leveled (SL), square_angled (SA), circular_leveled (CL), and circular_angled (CA) generating corresponding test assemblies (N=6). TL and TA arrangements included 3 magnetic units (3-magnet groups) and SL, SA, CL, and CA 4 (4-magnet groups). The retentive force (N) was measured at a mean crosshead speed of 10 mm/min (n=10). Each test assembly was subjected to insertion-removal test cycles with a 9-mm amplitude, ν=0.1 Hz, and n=10 consequent retentive force measurements at a crosshead speed of 10 mm/min at 540, 1080, 1620, and 2160 test cycles. Surface roughness alterations following the 2160 test cycles were measured by calculating the Sa, Sz, Sq, Sdr, Sc, and Sv parameters with an optical interferometric profiler with 5 new magnetic units used as a control group. Data were analyzed with 1-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD post hoc tests (α=.05).


      The 4-magnet groups had statistically significantly higher retentive force than the 3-magnet ones at baseline and following the 2160 test cycles (P<.05). In the 4-magnet group, the ranking at baseline was SA<CA<CL<SL (P<.05) and following the test cycles SA=CA<CL<SL (P<.05). No statistically significant differences were found in the surface roughness parameters (Sa, Sz, Sq, Sdr, Sc, and Sv) following the 2160 test cycles among the experimental groups tested (P>.05).


      Four magnetic attachments placed on an SL spatial arrangement resulted in the highest retention force but presented with the highest force reduction following the in vitro simulation of clinical service by insertion-removal test cycles.
      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 to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Beumer III, J.
        • Reiseberg D.
        • Marunick M.
        • et al.
        Rehabilitation of facial defects.
        in: Beumer III, J. Marunick M.T. Esposito S.J. Maxillofacial rehabilitation: prosthodontic and surgical management of cancer-related, acquired, and congenital defects of the head and neck. 3rd ed. Quintessence Pub, Hanover Park2011: 255-314
        • Artopoulou I.I.
        • Lemon J.C.
        Prosthetic rehabilitation of a complex maxillofacial defectas an alternative to surgical reconstruction: a case history report.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2016; 29: 227-229
        • Goiato M.C.
        • dos Santos D.M.
        • de Carvalho Dekon S.F.
        • Pelllizzer E.P.
        • Santiago Jr., J.F.
        • Moreno A.
        Craniofacial implantsuccess in facial rehailitation.
        J Craniofac Surg. 2011; 22: 241-242
        • Chang T.L.
        • Garett N.
        • Roumanas E.
        • Beumer III, J.
        Treatment satisfaction with facial prostheses.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2005; 94: 275-280
        • de Oliveira F.M.
        • Salazar-Gamarra R.
        • Öhman D.
        • Nannmark U.
        • Pecorari V.
        • Dib L.L.
        Quality of life assessment of patients utilizing orbital implant-supported prostheses.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018; 20: 438-443
        • Wondergem M.
        • Lieben G.
        • Bouman S.
        • van den Brekel
        • Lohuis P.J.F.M.
        Patients’ satisfaction with facial prostheses.
        Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 54: 394-399
        • Schoen P.J.
        • Raghoebar G.M.
        • van Oort R.P.
        • et al.
        Treatment outcome of bone-anchored craniofacial prostheses after tumor surgery.
        Cancer. 2001; 92: 3045-3050
        • Dings J.P.J.
        • Merkx M.A.W.
        • de ClonieMaclennan-Naphausen M.T.P.
        • van de Pol P.
        • Maal T.J.J.
        • Meijer G.J.
        Maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation: a survey on the quality of life.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 780-786
        • Jackson T.R.
        • Healey K.W.
        Rare earth magnetic attachments: the state of the art in removable prosthodontics.
        Quintessence Int. 1987; 18: 41-51
        • Jackson T.R.
        The application of rare earth magnetic retention to osseointegrated implants.
        Int J Oral maxillofac Implants. 1986; 2: 81-92
        • Lemon J.C.
        • Brignoni R.A.
        • Collard S.M.
        • Martin J.W.
        • Powers J.M.
        • Chambers M.S.
        In vitro effect of microwave irradiation on the retentive force of magnets.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2004; 91: 368-373
        • Lemon J.C.
        • Chambers M.S.
        • Wesley P.J.
        • Martin J.W.
        Technique for magnetic placement and orientation of a facial prosthesis.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1996; 75: 50-52
        • Sigua-Rodriguez E.A.
        • Goulart D.R.
        • Santos Z.T.
        • Alvarez-Pinzon N.
        • Olate S.
        • de Albergaria-Barbarosa J.R.
        Retention and mechanical behavior of attachment systems for implant-retained auricular prostheses.
        J Craniofac Surg. 2017; 28: 134-138
        • de Souza A.A.
        • Mattos B.S.C.
        Magnetic retention and bar-clip attachment for implant-retained auricular prostheses: a comparative analysis.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2008; 21: 233-236
        • Hao Z.
        • Chao Y.
        • Meng Y.
        • Yin H.
        Influence of repeated insertion-removal cycles on the force and magnetic leakage of magnetic attachments: an in vitro study.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 235-240
        • Van Kampen F.
        • Cune M.
        • van der Bilt A.
        • Bosman F.
        Retention and postinsertion maintenance of bar-clip, ball and magnet attachments in mandibular implant overdenture treatment: an in vivo comparison after 3 months of function.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003; 14: 720-726
        • Crabb G.
        Are magnets stronger when side-by-side?.
        (Available at:)
      1. K&J Magnetics, Inc. Side-by-side.
        (Available at:)
        • Takahashi M.
        • Togawa G.
        • Kanyi M.
        • Yamaguchi H.
        • Takada Y.
        Effect of crosshead speed on retentive force measured using a device specified in ISO1307: 2020.
        J Jpn Soc Dent Prod. 2021; 30: 12-17
        • K&J Magnetics, Inc
        The original K&J magnet calculator.
        (Available at:)
        Date accessed: April 14, 2021
        • Szymura S.
        • Rabinovich Y.M.
        • Bala H.
        • Maysterenko A.D.
        The correlation between the coercivity and the mechanical properties of sintered rare-earth-iron-boron magnets.
        J Phys: Condens Matter. 1994; 6: 3573-3582
        • Trout S.R.
        Material selection of permanent magnets, considering thermal properties correctly, Electric Manufacturing and Coil Winding Conference.
        October 15-18, 2001: 365-370 (Cincinnati, Ohio, USA)
        • Akash Y.
        Effect of temperature on electric current, magnets and electromagnet.
        Int J Adv Technol. 2016; 7: 1-4