Comparative studies of retentive forces in maxillary overdenture bar attachments.
- Author:
Cha Young SON
1
;
Chang Mo JEONG
;
Young Chan JEON
;
Jang Seop LIM
;
Hee Chan JEONG
Author Information
1. Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Busan National University, Korea. cmjeong@hyowon.cc.pusan.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Comparative Study ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Implant overdenture;
Retention;
Attachment
- MeSH:
Citrus sinensis;
Denture, Overlay*;
Humans;
Male;
Maxilla
- From:The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
2005;43(5):650-661
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: It could be hypothesised that attachments, which provide more retention against vertical and horizontal dislodgement, will be associated with more favorable parameters of oral function. PURPOSE: This study was to provide data of initial retentive force and retention loss of different bar attachment systems recommended for use with maxillary implant overdentures. MATERIAL AND METHOD: 4 implants were placed in the anterior region of edentulous maxilla, five different systems of bar attachment were fabricated as follows: cantilevered Hader bar using clips (Type 1), Hader bar using clips without cantilever (Type 2), Hader bar using clip and ERA attachment orange male (Type 3), Hader bar using clip and ERA attachment white male (Type 4), and Bar using magnets (Type 5). Each samples were placed in the universal testing machine for determination of retentive forces(at initial and after every 200 cycles up to 1,000 cycles). Results and Conclusion 1. Attachment type 1 showed the biggest initial retentive force followed by type 3, type 2, type 4, and lastly type 5( p<0.001). 2. After 1,000 cycles of repeated removals of attachments, significant loss of retentive forces was taken place except for attachment type 5. 3. After 1,000 cycles of repeated removals, the loss of retentive force between type 1 and type 2, which used Hader bar and clip attachments, was greater in type 1 that had wider clip formation. And between type 3 and type 4, which used ERA attachments, the loss of retentive force was greater in type 4 that had white male attached (p<0.001). 4. After 1,000 cycles of repeated removals, attachment type 3 showed the biggest retentive force followed by type 2, type 4, type 1 and lastly type. 5. There was no significant difference between attachment type 3 and 4, and type 4 and 1(p<0.001).
