Comparison of changes in retentive force of three stud attachments for implant overdentures.
- Author:
Su Min KIM
1
;
Jae Won CHOI
;
Young Chan JEON
;
Chang Mo JEONG
;
Mi Jung YUN
;
So Hyoun LEE
;
Jung Bo HUH
Author Information
- Publication Type:In Vitro ; Original Article
- Keywords: Overdenture attachment; Resilient attachment; Surface wear; Retention
- MeSH: Denture, Overlay*; Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; Polymers
- From:The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics 2015;7(4):303-311
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the changes in retentive force of stud attachments for implant overdentures by in vitro 2-year-wear simulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three commercially available attachment systems were investigated: Kerator blue, O-ring red, and EZ lock. Two implant fixtures were embedded in parallel in each custom base mounting. Five pairs of each attachment system were tested. A universal testing machine was used to measure the retentive force during 2500 insertion and removal cycles. Surface changes on the components were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). A Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by Pairwise comparison, was used to compare the retentive force between the groups, and to determine groups that were significantly different (alpha<.05). RESULTS: A comparison of the initial retentive force revealed the highest value for Kerator, followed by the O-ring and EZ lock attachments. However, no significant difference was detected between Kerator and O-ring (P>.05). After 2500 insertion and removal cycles, the highest retention loss was recorded for O-ring, and no significant difference between Kerator and EZ lock (P>.05). Also, Kerator showed the highest retentive force, followed by EZ lock and O-ring, after 2500 cycles (P<.05). Based on SEM analysis, the polymeric components in O-ring and Kerator were observed to exhibit surface wear and deformation. CONCLUSION: After 2500 insertion and removal cycles, all attachments exhibited significant loss in retention. Mechanism of retention loss can only be partially explained by surface changes.
