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
. 2022 Jul;14(Suppl 1):S605-S610.
doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_733_21. Epub 2022 Jul 13.

Comparison of Retention of Two Different Attachment Systems Used in Implant-Supported Overdentures

S Dhamodaran  1 , Shafath Ahmed  1 , Vidyashree Nandini  1 , Russia Marimuthu  1 , Sethuraman Ramadoss  1
Affiliations

Comparison of Retention of Two Different Attachment Systems Used in Implant-Supported Overdentures

S Dhamodaran et al. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2022 Jul.

Abstract

Aim: This study aims to compare the retentive capacity of two attachment systems after manual thermocycling.

Settings and design: In vitro study and Comparative trail.

Materials and methods: An edentulous mandibular Polymethyl Methacrylate model was fabricated to receive the overdentures with the two attachment systems to be compared. Two dental implants were placed in the predetermined right and left mandibular canine regions of the model. A total number of eight overdentures, four per group, were fabricated over the two implants with two attachment systems to be compared; Bar and clip attachment system (Group-1) and Locator attachment system (Group-2). All the overdentures were subjected to 5000 alternating thermal cycles using manual thermocycling. Then the samples were subjected to 100 vertical pulls each in the anterior and posterior regions using a universal testing machine and the mean retentive forces were calculated for each sample in the anterior and posterior regions, respectively.

Results: The mean retentive forces after 100 vertical pulls, were calculated and tabulated for each sample in the anterior and posterior regions separately. Then, the cumulative mean of the anterior and the posterior regions were calculated for each group. The cumulative mean retentive forces of both the attachment groups were-Group-1 (Bar and clip attachment system) = 27.87 N ± 4.01 and Group-2 (locator attachment system) = 18.85 N ± 2.50 with a P value of 0.021. This difference was found to be statistically significant.

Conclusion: Within the limitations of the present in vitro study, the bar and clip attachment system offered better retention than the locator attachment system.

Keywords: Attachment systems; bar and clip attachment system; implant-supported overdenture; locator attachment system; retentive force; thermocycling.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Prefabricated castable bar and clips
Figure 2
Figure 2
Locator attachment system
Figure 3
Figure 3
Total number of eight mandibular overdentures (Group 1 = 4 and Group 2 = 4)
Figure 4
Figure 4
Warpage of the overdenture after thermocycling
Figure 5
Figure 5
Metal sheet suspended from a metal hook in the crosshead of the UTM
Figure 6
Figure 6
Retention test performed in the posterior region of the mandibular overdenture with a pair of metal binder clips and paper clips that engage the posterior regions (right and left molar regions) of the overdenture
Chart 1
Chart 1
Comparison of cumulative mean retentive force between bar and clip attachment system and locator attachment system
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Zarb G, Hobkirk J, Eckert S, Jacob R. 12th ed. Delhi, India: Elsevier Publishers; 2004. Prosthodontic Treatment for Edentulous Patients: Complete Dentures and Implant-Supported Prostheses; pp. 71–190.
    1. Academy of Prosthodontics. The glossary of prosthodontic terms: Ninth edition. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117:e1–105. - PubMed
    1. Yunus N, Masood M, Saub R, Al-Hashedi AA, Taiyeb Ali TB, Thomason JM. Impact of mandibular implant prostheses on the oral health-related quality of life in partially and completely edentulous patients. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27:904–9. - PubMed
    1. Cardoso RG, Melo LA, Barbosa GA, Calderon PD, Germano AR, Mestriner W Junior, et al. Impact of mandibular conventional denture and overdenture on quality of life and masticatory efficiency. Braz Oral Res. 2016;30:e102. - PubMed
    1. Agarwal A, Kumar N, Singh K, Sirana P, Jain A. An overview on implant over-dentures. Heal Talk. 2018;10:53–4.