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
. 2008 May-Jun;21(3):233-6.

Magnetic retention and bar-clip attachment for implant-retained auricular prostheses: a comparative analysis

Affiliations
  • PMID: 18548962

Magnetic retention and bar-clip attachment for implant-retained auricular prostheses: a comparative analysis

Andréa Alves de Sousa et al. Int J Prosthodont. 2008 May-Jun.

Abstract

Retention systems for implant-retained auricular prostheses using either bar-clip attachments with 2 or 3 clips or retention with 2 or 3 magnets were wear tested (insertion and removal cycles) to simulate clinical periods of use. Measurements were taken at intervals of 540 cycles, which represents a period of use of approximately 6 months, for up to 3,240 cycles. Assessments of retentive force were carried out before, during, and after the wear test. Statistical analysis indicated that the bar-clip systems provided higher retention than the magnetic systems. The bar-clip attachment with 2 clips showed a significant loss of retentive force after wear testing (P < .05), suggesting lower durability and shorter clinical life. The retention provided by the bar-clip attachment with 3 clips remained stronger than that provided by all other systems tested. At the end of the wear test, the magnetic systems showed very little loss of retention but were still less retentive than the bar-clip systems, suggesting higher durability under clinical simulation despite the lower retention initially provided.

PubMed Disclaimer