Clinical performance of LOCATOR® attachments: A retrospective study with 1-8 years of follow-up
- PMID: 30181910
- PMCID: PMC6115879
- DOI: 10.1002/cre2.122
Clinical performance of LOCATOR® attachments: A retrospective study with 1-8 years of follow-up
Abstract
The use of LOCATOR® attachments in implant-supported removable dental prostheses (ISRDPs) has been evidenced with conflicting clinical behavior in literature. This retrospective study aimed to investigate the long-term clinical performance of LOCATOR® attachments by evaluating the frequency of the encountered mechanical complication events (MCEs) and the factors that play a role in attachment wear (AW). The study recruited participants with ISRDPs on LOCATOR® attachments. Clinical parameters, number of MCEs (attachment replacements, attachment loosenings, denture cap-related events, loss of retention and/or insert, and implant fractures), and AW were recorded. Nonparametric tests were applied for statistical analyses (𝛼=0.05). Baseline demographics for the recruited 47 participants (mean age: 72.0 ± 9.0 years) revealed an implant survival rate of 94.9% (mean observation period: 54.8 months), average peri-implant probing depths, bleeding on probing scores, and plaque scores of 1.80 ± 1.50 mm, 0.70 ± 0.90, and 0.81 ± 0.90, respectively. MCEs were directly influenced by the time in use (p < 0.001). The most frequently encountered MCEs were loss of retention (p < 0.001) and denture cap-related complications (p = 0.004). AW was found to be significantly higher in the maxilla than in the mandible (p = 0.028); in the maxilla, the vestibular (p = 0.005) and mesial (p = 0.01) aspects were the most common wear sites. Maxillary implant overdentures revealed more vestibular AW (p = 0.013). In prostheses supported by >3 implants, vestibular (p = 0.046) and mesial (p = 0.032) AW were common. Lingual AW (p = 0.021) was observed more frequently when the support was <3 implants. Loss of retention and AW are the most common complications encountered with LOCATOR® attachments. Therefore, a modification in the attachment design along with an amelioration of the attachment surface may help decrease the maintenance needs and further enhance its clinical performance.
Keywords: LOCATOR® attachments; attachment wear; implant overdentures; mechanical complications; overdenture; removable dental prostheses.
Figures

References
-
- Abi Nader, S. , de Souza, R. F. , Fortin, D. , De Koninck, L. , Fromentin, O. , & Albuquerque Junior, R. F. (2011). Effect of simulated masticatory loading on the retention of stud attachments for implant overdentures. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 38, 157–164. - PubMed
-
- Al‐Ghafli, S. A. , Michalakis, K. X. , Hirayama, H. , & Kang, K. (2009). The in vitro effect of different implant angulations and cyclic dislodgement on the retentive properties of an overdenture attachment system. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 102, 140–147. - PubMed
-
- Alsabeeha, N. H. , Swain, M. V. , & Payne, A. G. (2011). Clinical performance and material properties of single‐implant overdenture attachment systems. The International Journal of Prosthodontics, 24, 247–254. - PubMed
-
- Awad, M. A. , Lund, J. P. , Shapiro, S. H. , Locker, D. , Klemetti, E. , Chehade, A. , … Feine, J. S. (2003). Oral health status and treatment satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures: A randomized clinical trial in a senior population. The International Journal of Prosthodontics, 16, 390–396. - PubMed
-
- Buser, D. , Weber, H. P. , & Lang, N. P. (1990). Tissue integration of non‐submerged implants. 1‐year results of a prospective study with 100 ITI hollow‐cylinder and hollow‐screw implants. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 1, 33–40. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Miscellaneous