Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume 86, Issue 6 , Pages 603-607, December 2001

Retention of maxillary implant overdenture bars of different designs☆☆★★♢♢

Presented in part at the 78th General Session of the IADR, Washington DC, April 2000, and at the Joint Symposium of the American Academy and International Congress of Maxillofacial Prosthetics, Kauai, Hawaii, November 2000.

School of Dentistry, University of California at Los Angeles, Calif.; and Kanagawa Dental College, Kanagawa, Japan

Abstract 

Statement of Problem. The specific degree of retention for overdenture attachments is unknown in relation to design, location, and alignment to supporting dental implants. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the initial retention characteristics of 5 implant maxillary overdenture designs under in vitro dislodging forces. Material and Methods. A simulated edentulous maxilla was fabricated with 4 screw-type 3.75 × 13-mm implants anteriorly. Five overdenture designs with the following attachments were evaluated: 4 plastic Hader clips with an EDS bar; 2 plastic anterior Hader clips with an identical EDS bar; 2 Hader clips with 2 posterior ERA attachments; 3 Zaag attachments on a bar; and 4 Zaag attachments with no bar. Overdentures were fabricated with full palatal coverage. Each design was subjected to 10 consecutive retention pulls on a universal testing machine. Data were subjected to analysis of variance and t tests to determine differences. Results. The highest average value after 10 pulls was 19.8 lb for the combination ERA and Hader clip design. The lowest retentive values were recorded for the 2 and 4 Hader clip designs (5.08 ± 0.89 lb and 5.06 ± 0.67 lb, respectively). Retention decreased over the course of consecutive pulls for all designs, especially for the most retentive designs. The smallest retention decrease occurred with the least retentive designs. Conclusion. The results of this in vitro study suggest that the precise selection and placement of attachments may affect the clinical success of maxillary implant-retained overdentures. (J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:603-7.)

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 15.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 aLecturer, Division of Advanced Prosthodontics, Biomaterials, and Hospital Dentistry, UCLA School of Dentistry. Private practice, Mesa, Ariz.

☆☆ bLecturer, Division of Advanced Prosthodontics, Biomaterials, and Hospital Dentistry, UCLA School of Dentistry.

 cAssistant Professor, Department of Prosthetics and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, Kanagawa Dental College.

★★ dAssociate Professor, Division of Advanced Prosthodontics, Biomaterials, and Hospital Dentistry, UCLA School of Dentistry.

 eProfessor of Biomaterials Science, Division of Advanced Prosthodontics, Biomaterials, and Hospital Dentistry, UCLA School of Dentistry.

♢♢ Reprint requests to: Dr Angelo Caputo, Department of Biomaterials Science, Division of Advanced Prosthodontics, Biomaterials, and Hospital Dentistry, UCLA School of Dentistry, Los Angeles, CA 90095, Fax: (310)206-5539, E-mail: angeloc@dent.ucla.edu

PII: S0022-3913(01)08645-0

doi:10.1067/mpr.2001.120838

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume 86, Issue 6 , Pages 603-607, December 2001