Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 May-Jun;22(3):366-72.

Retention and load transfer characteristics of implant-retained auricular prostheses

Affiliations
  • PMID: 17622002

Retention and load transfer characteristics of implant-retained auricular prostheses

Brian H Williams et al. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007 May-Jun.

Abstract

Purpose: The use of osseointegrated implants for maxillofacial prostheses reduces the need for adhesives, provides for a more stable and more esthetic prosthesis with thinner margins, and results in increased patient acceptance and confidence. The purpose of this study was to compare the retention and load transfer characteristics of differently designed implant-retained auricular prostheses.

Materials and methods: A photoelastic model was fabricated of the auricular-temporal region of a human skull. Craniofacial implants 3.75 mm in diameter and 4 mm long were embedded in locations typically selected to retain auricular prostheses. Two retention mechanisms were evaluated on the implants: a Hader bar with 3 clips and the use of 3 Locator attachments. The retentive capacity of the prostheses was determined on an Instron test machine. Initial retention and changes with multiple removals were examined. Dislodgment forces were applied to each retentive device in the field of a circular polariscope. Resulting stresses were monitored and recorded photographically.

Results: The highest initial retention demonstrated by the Locator device was 12.4 +/- 0.9 lb, and the highest retention value for the Hader bar with clips was 7.5 +/- 1.1 lb. All attachments decreased in retention after multiple removals. The Locator devices produced higher peri-implant stresses compared to the Hader bar-with-clips design.

Conclusions: Since higher retention is associated with higher stresses, results of this study suggest that a balance between retention and stress production is necessary in selecting a retention mechanism for the specific requirements of the patient being treated. The Locator attachment was correlated with higher retention values as well as with higher peri-implant stress compared to the Hader bar-and-clip attachment design. Retention decreased and then stabilized after multiple

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by