Assessment of retention characteristics of different attachments following new modifications (an in vitro study)

Authors

  • Mahabad Mahmud Saleh Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq.
  • Dhia Aldori Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Al Kitab University, Altun Kupri, Kirkuk, Iraq.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15218/edj.2022.2

Keywords:

Retention, Attachment, Stress, Strain

Abstract

Background and objectives: This study aimed to compare the retention characteristics of different attachments used to retain partial dentures following new modifications.
Methods: In this study three types of commonly used extracoronal castable attachments were selected, namely (1) Preci-verttix standard, CEKA attachment, (2) Preci-sagix mini size, CEKA attachment, (3) OT- cap normal, Rhein 83. They underwent simple modifications in order to improve their retention. A total of forty-two samples were prepared in three main groups. Each group subdivided into two subgroups with fourteen samples; 7 samples for non-modified and 7 for modified attachments. The tensile force was applied using a universal testing machine at a cross-head speed of 50 mm/min and maximum retention force at dislodgment was recorded. Strain and stress at dislodgement were calculated. Data were collected and analyzed using one- way ANOVA followed by Duncan test and finally paired ttest was performed for comparing the modified and non-modified attachments.
Results: For all attachments, retention was increased significantly following modification except for OT-cap, which showed a non-significant reduction in retention. Modified Precivertix attachment was most retentive with the mean value of (48.893) Newton. For all attachments strain at dislodgement was increased after modification and highest mean value of (1.292) was recorded for Preci-sagix. Stress at dislodgement was increased following modification for all attachments, except Preci- vertix which showed significant reduction of stress.
Conclusions: Modified Preci-vertix attachment showed the highest retention value with a significant reduction in stress.

References

Angadi PB, Aras M, Williams C, Nagaral S. Precision attachments; applications and limitations. J Evol Med Dent Sci. 2012;1(6):1113–21.

Scherer MD, McGlumphy EA, Seghi RR, Campagni WV. Comparison of retention and stability of implant-retained overdentures based upon implant number and distribution. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28(6):1619–28.

Rutkunas V, Mizutani H. Retentive and stabilizing properties of stud and magnetic attachments retaining mandibular overdenture. an in vitro study. Stomatol Balt Dent Maxillofac J. 2004;6:85–90.

Rutkunas V, Mizutani H, Takahashi H. Evaluation of stable retentive properties of overdenture attachments. Stomatologija. 2005;7(4):115–20.

Hassan HA, Emera RMK, Ahmed WS, El-Mekawy N. Evaluation of Implant Overdenture Retention with Two Different Attachments at 23 mm Standard Inter-Implant Distance. J Dent Oral Sci. 2020;2 (2):1–9. http://doi.org/10.37191/Mapsci-2582-3736-2(2)-026

Dohiem MMA. The effect of different connector design on the stress distribution in tooth implant supported restorations. CU Theses. 2012.

El Sayed MEM. Stress analysis study of two treatment modalities rehabilitating distal extension cases with few remaning natural teeth. Cairo Dent J. 2008;24(3):379–93.

Elsaih EA. Implant-supported distal extension mandibular partial overdenture: comparison of two attachment types effect on mandibular posterior residual alveolar bone (five year retrospective study). Egypt Dent J. 2020;66(2):1317–26. http://doi.org/10.21608/edj.2020.23975.1007

Zitzmann NU, Rohnerb U, Weiger R, Krastl G. When to choose which retention element to use for removable dental prostheses. Int J Prosthodont. 2009;22(2):161–7.

Khanam HK, Bharathi M, Reddy KRK, Reddy SG. Attachments in prosthodontics: different systems of classification: a review. J Evol Med Dent Sci. 2014;3(28):7937–45. https://doi.org/10.14260/jemds/2014/2993

Sadek SA. Comparative Study Clarifying the Usage of PEEK as Suitable Material to Be Used as Partial Denture Attachment and Framework. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019;7(7):1193-7. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2019.287

Petropoulos VC, Smith W. Maximum dislodging forces of implant overdenture stud attachments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002;17(4):526–35.

Ahmadzadeh A, Fereidoonpoor N. Comparison of Retentive Force in Four Attachment Systems in Implant-Supported Overdenture of the Lower Arch. J Dent. 2012;13(2):54–8.

Sadig W. A comparative in vitro study on the retention and stability of implant-supported overdentures. Quintessence Int. 2009;40(4).

Reda KM, El-Torky IR, EL-Gendy MN. In vitro retention force measurement for three different attachment systems for implant-retained overdenture. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2016;16(4):380. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4052.191284

ELsyad MA, Elhaddad AA, Khirallah AS. Retentive properties of O-ring and locator attachments for implant-retained maxillary overdentures: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont. 2018;27(6):568–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12534

Petropoulos VC, Mante FK. Comparison of retention and strain energies of stud attachments for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont Implant Esthet Reconstr Dent. 2011;20(4):286–93.

Williams BH, Ochiai KT, Hojo S, Nishimura R, Caputo AA. Retention of maxillary implant overdenture bars of different designs. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;86(6):603–7. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.120838

Bayer S, Stark H, Mues S, Keilig L, Schrader A, Enkling N. Retention force measurement of telescopic crowns. Clin Oral Investig. 2010;14(5):607–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0315-z

Kim S-M, Choi J-W, Jeon Y-C, Jeong C-M, Yun MJ, Lee S-H, et al. Comparison of changes in retentive force of three stud attachments for implant overdentures. J Adv Prosthodont. 2015;7(4):303–11. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2015.7.4.303

Mattia PR, Botega DM, Zani SR, Rivaldo EG, Frasca LCF. Evaluation of retentive force of attachment systems for overdentures retained by one or two implants. Stomatos. 2016;22 (42):15–22.

Botega DM, Mesquita MF, Henriques GEP, Vaz LG. Retention force and fatigue strength of overdenture attachment systems. J Oral Rehabil. 2004;31(9):884–9.

Chung K-H, Chung C-Y, Cagna DR, Cronin Jr RJ. Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont Implant Esthet Reconstr Dent. 2004;13(4):221–6. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.120838

ElKerdawy MW, Radi IAW. Effect of Dislodging Forces on Mandibular Implant AttachmentRetained Overdenture: Implant Dent. 2011;20(3):246–54. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e318211fe1b.

Downloads

Published

2022-07-30

How to Cite

1.
Saleh MM, Aldori D. Assessment of retention characteristics of different attachments following new modifications (an in vitro study). EDJ [Internet]. 2022 Jul. 30 [cited 2022 Aug. 11];5(1):9-18. Available from: https://edj.hmu.edu.krd/index.php/journal/article/view/154

Issue

Section

Original Articles