Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 1425–1434 | Cite as

Retentive characteristics of individual and prefabricated polyvinylsiloxane overdenture attachments: alternative treatment options for geriatric patients

  • Ramona SchweyenEmail author
  • C. Arnold
  • J. M. Setz
  • J. Hey
Original Article
  • 153 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

Stud attachments are often too adhesive and too susceptible to damage for use in geriatric patients, especially when implants are angulated. This study aimed to evaluate alternative anchoring systems comprising individual and prefabricated polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) attachments.

Materials and methods

A total of 182 specimens with individual PVS (IPVS) attachments (Shore hardness [SH] 25, SH50, SH65], prefabricated PVS (PPVS) attachments (SM green, yellow, and red), and Locator attachments (LR blue) were fabricated (n = 7 per group). Retention force was measured using the following parameters: insertion/removal (100, 200, 500, 1000, and 5000 cycles), thermal undulation (10,000 cycles at 5–55 °C; one implant per specimen), implant angulation (0°, 5°, and 10° convergence and divergence; two implants per specimen), and artificial saliva.

Results

Insertion/removal and thermal undulation caused no changes in retention force in SM green and IPVS subgroups; conversely, LR blue, SM red, and SM yellow attachments exhibited significant decreases in retention force of up to 66% (all P ≤ 0.001). Implant angulation produced relevant changes in retention force only in LR blue attachments. Artificial saliva caused a general decrease in retention force.

Conclusions

Retention force of low-retentive PVS attachments proved to be comparatively immune to dislocation and thermal undulation, as well as to implant angulation up to 10°.

Clinical relevance

Low-retentive PVS attachments could be a treatment option if reduced denture retention is required and/or if angulated implants are in place. Clinical studies are necessary to evaluate the materials’ durability under oral conditions.

Keywords

Polyvinylsiloxane Implants Attachments Overdenture Geriatric dentistry 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Bredent Medical, Senden, Germany, for supporting this study by providing materials.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent was not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Douglass CW, Shih A, Ostry L (2002) Will there be a need for complete dentures in the United States in 2020? J Prosthet Dent 87(1):5–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Müller F, Link I, Fuhr K, Utz KH (1995) Studies on adaptation to complete dentures. Part II: oral stereognosis and tactile sensibility. J Oral Rehabil 22(10):759–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thomason JM, Kelly SA, Bendkowski A, Ellis JS (2012) Two implant retained overdentures - a review of the literature supporting the McGill and York consensus statements. J Dent 40:22–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burns DR (2000) Mandibular implant overdenture treatment: consensus and controversy. J Prosthodont 9:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alsabeeha NH, Payne AG, Swain MV (2009) Attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: a review of in vitro investigations on retention and wear features. Int J Prosthodont 22:429–440Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cardoso RC, Gerngross PJ, Dominici JT, Kiat-amnuay S (2013) Survey of currently selected dental implants and restorations by prosthodontists. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28:1017–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kronstrom M, Carlsson GE (2017) An international survey among Prosthodontists of the use of mandibular implant-supported dental prostheses. J Prosthodont.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12603
  8. 8.
    Müller F, Duvernay E, Loup A, Vazquez L, Herrmann FR, Schimmel M (2013) Implant-supported mandibular overdentures in very old adults -a randomized controlled trial. J Dent Res 92:154–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schweyen R, Beuer F, Arnold C, Hey J (2015) Retentive characteristics of a vinylpolysiloxane overdenture attachment system. Clin Oral Investig 19:947–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kang SH, Lee HJ, Hong SH, Kim KH, Kwon TY (2013) Influence of surface characteristics on the adhesion of Candida albicans to various denture lining materials. Acta Odontol Scand 71:241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pigozzo MN, Mesquita MF, Henriques GE, Vaz LG (2009) The service life of implant-retained overdenture attachment systems. J Prosthet Dent 102(2):74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petropoulos VC, Smith W, Kousvelari E (1997) Comparison of retention and release periods for implant overdenture attachments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 12:176–185Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rutkanas V, Mizutani H (2004) Retentive and stabilizing properties of stud and magnetic attachments retaining manibular overdenture. Stomatol 6:85–90Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chung KH, Whiting D, Kronstrom M, Chan D, Wataha J (2011) Retentive characteristics of overdenture attachments during repeated dislodging and cyclic loading. Int J Prosthodont 24:127–129Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Türk PE, Geckili O, Türk Y, Günay V, Bilgin T (2014) In vitro comparison of retentive properties of ball and locator attachments for implant overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 5:1106–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wolf K, Ludwig K, Hartfil H, Kern M (2009) Analysis of retention and wear of ball attachments. Quintessence Int 40:405–412Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stephens GJ, di Vitale N, O’Sullivan E, McDonald A (2014) The influence of interimplant divergence on the retention characteristics of locator attachments, a laboratory study. J Prosthodont 23:467–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Engelhardt F, Zeman F, Behr M, Hahmel S (2016) Prosthetic complications and maintenance requirements in locator-attached implant-supported overdentures: a retrospective study. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 24:31–35Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gent AM (1958) On the relation between indentation hardness and Young’s modulus. IRI Trans 34:46–57Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meththananda IM, Parker S, Patel MP, Braden M (2009) The relationship between shore hardness of elastomeric dental materials and Young’s modulus. Dent Mater 25:956–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Srinivasan M, Schimmel M, Badoud I, Ammann P, Herrmann FR, Müller F (2016) Influence of implant angulation and cyclic dislodging on the retentive force of two different overdenture attachments - an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 27:604–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kobayashi M, Srinivasan M, Ammann P, Perriard J, Ohkubo C, Müller F, Belser UC, Schimmel M (2014) Effects of in vitro cyclic dislodging on retentive force and removal torque of three overdenture attachment systems. Clin Oral Implants Res 25:426–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bayer S, Keilig L, Kraus D, Grüner M, Stark H, Mues S, Enkling N (2011) Influence of the lubricant and the alloy on the wear behaviour of attachments. Gerodontology 28:221–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Srinivasan M, Schimmel M, Kobayashi M, Badoud I, Ammann P, Herrmann FR, Müller F (2016) Influence of different lubricants on the retentive force of LOCATOR attachments - an in vitro pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res 27:771–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hatton MN, Levine MJ, Margarone JE, Aguirre A (1987) Lubrication and viscosity features of human saliva and commercially available saliva substitutes. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 45:496–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vissink A, Waterman HA, Gravenmade EJ, Panders AK, Vermey A (1984) Rheological properties of saliva substitutes containing mucin, carboxymethylcellulose or polyethylenoxide. J Oral Pathol 13:22–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yang TC, Maeda Y, Gonda T, Kotecha S (2011) Attachment systems for implant overdenture: influence of implant inclination on retentive and lateral forces. Clin Oral Implants Res 22:1315–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jabbour Z, Fromentin O, Lassauzay C, Abi Nader S, Correa JA, Feine J, de Albuquerque Junior RF (2014) Effect of implant angulation on attachment retention in mandibular two-implant overdentures: a clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 16:565–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Setz JM, Wright PS, Ferman AM (2000) Effects of attachment type on the mobility of implant-stabilized overdentures—an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont 13:494–499Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chung KH, Chung CY, Cagna DR, Cronin RJ Jr (2004) Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont 13:221–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bulad K, Taylor RL, Verran J, McCord JF (2004) Colonization and penetration of denture soft lining materials by Candida albicans. Dent Mater 20(2):167–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Taylor RL, Bulad K, Verran J, McCord JF (2008) Colonization and deterioration of soft denture lining materials in vivo. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 16(2):50–55Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pavan S, dos Santos PH, Filho JN, Spolidorio DM (2010) Colonisation of soft lining materials by micro-organisms. Gerodontology 27:211–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental MedicineMartin-Luther-University Halle-WittenbergHalleGermany

Personalised recommendations