International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 4 ( October-December, 2023 ) > List of Articles


An In Vitro Study to Evaluate Retention of Ball and Locator Attachments in Straight and Angulated Implant-supported Overdenture

Neha Gaur

Keywords : Ball attachment, Implant angulation, Implant overdenture, Locator attachment, Retention force

Citation Information : Gaur N. An In Vitro Study to Evaluate Retention of Ball and Locator Attachments in Straight and Angulated Implant-supported Overdenture. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2023; 13 (4):235-241.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1435

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-12-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Purpose: To compare retention and retention loss exhibited by a pair of ball or locator attachments individually or in combination in straight and angulated two implant-retained overdentures (IRODs) over a period equivalent to 5 years of denture insertion and removal. Materials and methods: The bilateral canine region of the edentulous mandibular model was used to receive two implants at 0 and 15°. Overdenture bases were retained by ball or locator attachments individually or in combination and grouped as group BB (retained by a pair of ball attachments); group LL (retained by a pair of locator attachments); group BL (retained by ball attachment on straight and locator attachment on 15° angulated implant); and group LB (retained by locator attachment on straight and ball attachment on 15° angulated implant). Respective housings were picked up in overdenture matrices (seven per group). After cyclic loading with 70 N of load for 100,000 cycles, retention values were recorded at various intervals of time during 7,200 insertion-removal cycles. Data was analyzed using one-way analysis of variances (ANOVA) and Tukey's multiple comparison test. Results: A significant difference was found for intergroup comparison of mean retention. Group LB maintained the highest initial and final retentive force, that is, 182.44 ± 63.59 N and 108.64 ± 52.03 N, respectively. Group LB exhibited the highest mean loss of retention of 42.42 ± 9.88%, followed by BB (41.38 ± 4.25%), BL (35.57 ± 5.78%), and lastly LL (24.65 ± 6.60%). There was a significant decrease in mean retention for all the groups during the 1st year and subsequently from 2 to 5 years except LL. Conclusion: There exists a significant loss in mean retention in all combinations of ball and locator attachments at straight and angulated implants. The combination of a locator at 0° and ball attachment at 15° exhibited the highest retention, in spite of the maximum percentage loss of retention. Therefore, the combination of a locator on a straight and ball attachment on an angulated implant seems suitable and can ensure adequate retention during long-term clinical use.

  1. Caldas RA, Pfeifer CSC, Bacchi A, et al. Implant inclination and horizontal misfit in metallic bar framework of overdentures: analysis by 3D-FEA method. Braz Dent J 2018;29(2):166–172. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201801672
  2. Ku JK, Park WH, Hwang KG, et al. Current trends for maxillary implant overdentures. J Dent Implant Res 2022;40(2):54–58. DOI: 10.54527/jdir.2021.40.2.54
  3. Zlatarić KD, Ćelić R, Pezo H. urrent Concepts in Dental Implantology - From Science to Clinical Research. 2022. pp. 176–184.
  4. Wendler F, Diehl L, Shayanfard P, et al. Implant-supported overdentures: current status and preclinical testing of a novel attachment system. J Clin Med 2023;12(3):1012. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12031012
  5. Khalikar SA, Ade NU, Dange SP, et al. Kerator attachment system for implant-supported overdenture: A review of literature. Int J Appl Dent Sci 2023;9(2):105–108. DOI: 10.22271/oral.2023.v9.i2b.1719
  6. Klemetti E. Is there a certain number of implants needed to retain an overdenture? J Oral Rehabil 2008;35(Suppl 1):80–84. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01825.x
  7. Burns DR, Unger JW, Elswick RK Jr, et al. Prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures: Part I–retention, stability, and tissue response. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73(4):354–363. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(05)80331-2
  8. Rutkunas V, Mizutani H, Takahashi H, et al. Wear simulation effects on overdenture stud attachments. Dent Mater J 2011;30(6):845–853. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2011-057
  9. Arnold C, Stampa C, Schweyen R, et al. Retentive characteristics of a new attachment system for hybrid dentures. Materials (Basel) 2020;13(15):3434. DOI: 10.3390/ma13153434
  10. Alsabeeha NH, Payne AG, Swain MV. Attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: a review of in vitro investigations on retention and wear features. Int J Prosthodont 2009;22(5):429–440.
  11. Türk PE, Geckili O, Türk Y, et al. In vitro comparison of the retentive properties of ball and locator attachments for implant overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;29(5):1106–1113. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3621
  12. Locator® attachment system technique manual. Carlsbad (CA): Zest dental solutions; 2020.
  13. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, et al. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90(2):121–132. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00212-9
  14. Poletto-Neto V, Tretto PHW, Zen BM, et al. Influence of implant inclination and prosthetic abutment type on the biomechanics of implant-supported fixed partial dentures. J Oral Implantol 2019;45(5):343–350. DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-18-00305
  15. Kurtulus IL, Gurbulak AG. The in vitro comparison of the retention of an implant-supported stud attachment locator and straumann ball attachment at different angulations. Niger J Clin Pract 2018;21(5):639–644. DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_276_17
  16. Upinder S, Saluja BS, Gupta G, et al. Comparison of changes in retentive force and wear pattern of two stud attachments for implant overdentures: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Sci 2019;11:65–70. DOI: 10.4103/IJDS.IJDS_96_18
  17. Choi JW, Bae JH, Jeong CM, et al. Retention and wear behaviors of two implant overdenture stud-type attachments at different implant angulations. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117(5):628–635. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.027
  18. Rutkunas V, Mizutani H. Retentive and stabilizing properties of stud and magnetic attachments retaining mandibular overdenture. An in vitro study. Stomatologija Baltic Dent Maxillofac J 2004;6:85–90.
  19. Dubois N. Retention values of locator attachments versus different implant angulations. 2017 (SoDM Masters Theses)
  20. Mínguez-Tomás N, Alonso-Pérez-Barquero J, Fernández-Estevan L, et al. In vitro retention capacity of two overdenture attachment systems: Locator® and Equator®. J Clin Exp Dent 2018;10(7):e681–e686. DOI: 10.4317/jced.54834
  21. Besimo CE, Guarneri A. In vitro retention force changes of prefabricated attachments for overdentures. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30(7):671–678. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01140.x
  22. Chung KH, Chung CY, Cagna DR, et al. Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont 2004;13(4):221–226. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04042.x
  23. Jabbour Z, Fromentin O, Lassauzay C, et al. Effect of implant angulation on attachment retention in mandibular two-implant overdentures: a clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014;16(4):565–571. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12030
  24. Pigozzo MN, Mesquita MF, Henriques GE, et al. The service life of implant-retained overdenture attachment systems. J Prosthet Dent 2009;102(2):74–80. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60112-8
  25. Al-Ghafli SA, Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, et al. The in vitro effect of different implant angulations and cyclic dislodgement on the retentive properties of an overdenture attachment system. J Prosthet Dent 2009;102(3):140–147. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60134-7
  26. Rutkunas V, Mizutani H, Takahashi H. Influence of attachment wear on retention of mandibular overdenture. J Oral Rehabil 2007;34(1):41–51. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01640.x
  27. de Albuquerque RF Jr, Fromentin O, Lassauzay C, et al. Patient satisfaction versus retention of implant overdentures with two attachment systems: a randomized trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21(1):21–31. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12675
  28. Elsonbaty MA, Alshimy AM, Abdul-Monem MM, et al. Evaluation of retention and wear of a titanium-formed stud overdenture attachment with different interimplant angulations after simulated clinical use: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2022;128(2):205.e1–205.e10. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.06.007
  29. Yang TC, Maeda Y, Gonda T, et al. Attachment systems for implant overdenture: influence of implant inclination on retentive and lateral forces. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22(11):1315–1319. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02137.x
  30. Alsaggaf A, Sultana N, Bartlett D, et al. The effect of implant angulation on the performance of the locator R-TX overdenture attachments. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:236. DOI: 10.1111/clr.121_13358
  31. Elsyad MA, Emera RM, Ashmawy TM. Effect of distal implant inclination on dislodging forces of different locator attachments used for mandibular overdentures: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont 2019;28(2):e666–e674. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12710
  32. Sadig W. A comparative in vitro study on the retention and stability of implant-supported overdentures. Quintessence Int 2009;40(4):313–319.
  33. Setz I, Lee SH, Engel E. Retention of prefabricated attachments for implant stabilized overdentures in the edentulous mandible: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80(3):323–329. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(98)70133-7
  34. Saavedra G, Barbosa SH, Landin KT, et al. Influence of the insertion angle in the retention and fatigue strength of an O’ring system for implant overdentures. Rev Implant News 2007;4:249–253.
  35. Misch CE. Dental Implant Prosthetics, 3rd edition. USA: Elsevier Mosby; 2005.
  36. Eltaftazani I, Moubarak A, El-Anwar M. Locator attachment versus ball attachment: 3-dimensional finite element study. Egypt Dent J 2011;57:73–85.
  37. Fu CC, Hsu YT. A comparison of retention characteristics in prefabricated and custom-cast dental attachments. J Prosthodont 2009;18(5):388–392. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00459.x
  38. Evtimovska E, Masri R, Driscoll CF, et al. The change in retentive values of locator attachments and hader clips over time. J Prosthodont 2009;18(6):479–483. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00474.x
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.