Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An in vitro investigation into retention strength and fatigue resistance of various designs of tooth/implant supported overdentures

  • Published:
Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology [Medical Sciences] Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Previously, the choice of prosthetic implant-retained overdentures has depended on data from previous studies about the retention-fatigue strength of the attachment system selected. Little or no data have been available on the correlation between the attachment system selected and the overdenture support configuration. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the retention force and fatigue resistance of three attachment systems and four support designs of overdenture prosthesis. Four lower edentulous acrylic models were prepared and eight combinations of attachments groups were investigated in the study. These included: O-Rings with mini-dental implants (MDIs), Dalbo elliptic with Dalbo Rotex and fabricated flexible acrylic attachments with both MDI and Dalbo Rotex. The study was divided into four test groups: groups A and B, controls, and groups C and D, experimental groups. Control group A contained three overdenture supports: two free standing MDIs in the canine region and at the midline, and one simulated tooth root with Dalbo Rotex screwed in. Control group B contained four overdenture support foundations: two free standing MDIs in the right canine region and the first premolar region, and two simulated tooth roots with Dalbo Rotex screwed in at the same MDI position, but on the left side of the model. Experimental group C contained three overdenture support foundations: two free standing MDIs in the canine region and at the midline, and one simulated tooth root with MDI screwed in. Experimental group D contained four overdenture support foundations: two free standing MDIs in the right canine region and the first premolar region, and two simulated tooth roots with MDIs screwed in at the same MDI position, but on the left side of the model. Each group was further divided into two subgroups according to attachment type used. Five samples were prepared for each group. Retention force (N) values were recorded initially (0 cycles) and after 360, 720, 1440 and 2880 insertion and removal cycles. During the tensile test a cross-head speed of 10 mm/min was applied. Values of absolute force (AF) and relative force (RF) were statistically analyzed by two-way ANOVA and multiple comparison Tukey’s tests between groups and cycles periods. The results of fatigue tests showed a 50% reduction in retention force in the subgroups with flexible attachments. A triangular design of overdenture support foundations with O-Ring attachments revealed the lowest value of AF and a relatively high reduction in RF. The four overdenture support designs with flexible acrylic attachments improved the retention force and reduced the fatigue retention. Furthermore, the results of the investigation demonstrate that flexible acrylic attachments for both teeth and implant-supported overdentures offer a wide range of retention forces.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mericske-Stern R. Overdentures with roots or implants for elderly patients: A comparison. J Prosthet Dent, 1994, 72(5):543–550

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wöstmann B, Budtz-Jørgensen E, Jepson N, et al. Indications for removable partial dentures: A literature review. Int J Prosthodont, 2005, 18(2):139–145

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kaufmann R, Friedli M, Hug S, et al. Removable dentures with implant support in strategic positions followed for up to 8 years. Int J Prosthodont, 2009, 22(3):233–241

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Doukas D, Michelinakis G, Smith PW, et al. The influence of interimplant distance and attachment type on the retention characteristics of mandibular overdentures on 2 implants: 6-month fatigue retention values. Int J Prosthodont, 2008, 21(2):152–154

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Petropoulos VC, Smith W. Maximum dislodging forces of implant overdenture stud attachments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2002, 17(4):526–535

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Van Kampen F, Cune M, Van der Bilt A, et al. Retention and postinsertion maintenance of bar-clip, ball and magnet attachments in mandibular implant overdenture treatment: an in vivo comparison after 3 months of function. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2003, 14(6):720–726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Visser A, Meijer H, Raghoebar GM, et al. Implant-retained mandibular overdentures versus conventional dentures: 10 years of care and aftercare. Int J Prosthodont, 2006, 19(3):271–278

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Liddelow GJ, Henry PJ. A prospective study of immediately loaded single implant-retained mandibular overdentures: Preliminary one-year results. J Prosthet Dent, 2007;97(6 Suppl):S126–37

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Marzola R, Scotti R, Fazi G, et al. Immediate loading of two implants supporting a ball attachment-retained mandibular overdenture: A prospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2007, 9(3):136–143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chung KH, Chung CY, Cagna DR, et al. Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont, 2004, 13(4):221–226.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Williams BH, Ochiai KT, Hojo S, et al. Retention of maxillary implant overdenture bars of different designs. J Prosthet Dent, 2001, 86(6):603–607

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Botega DM, Mesquita MF, Henriques GE, et al. Retention force and fatigue strength of overdenture attachment systems. J Oral Rehabil, 2004, 31(9):884–889

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ohya K, Kanazawa M, Minakuchi S. Retentive force of stress breaking attachments on maxillary implant overdentures. J Prosthod Res, 2009, 53(2):78–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zarb G, Bolender C, Eckert S, et al. Prosthodontic treatment for edentulous patients: complete dentures and implant-supported prostheses. 12th ed., St. Louis: Mosby, 2003:417–418

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ortegon SM, Thompson GA, Agar JR, et al. Retention forces of spherical attachments as a function of implant and matrix angulation in mandibular overdentures: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent, 2009, 101(4):231–238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Burns DR, Unger JW, Elswick RK Jr, et al. Prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures: part II-patient satisfaction and preference. J Prosthet Dent, 1995, 73(4):364–369

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Walton JN, Ruse ND. In vitro changes in clips and bars used to retain implant overdentures. J Prosthet Dent, 1995, 74(5):482–486

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Breeding LC, Dixon DL, Schmitt S. The effect of simulated function on the retention of bar-clip retained removable prostheses. J Prosthet Dent, 1996, 75(5):570–573

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Epstein DD, Epstein PL, Cohen BI, et al. Comparison of the retentive properties of six prefabricated post overdenture attachment systems. J Prosthet Dent, 1999, 82(5): 579–584

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Gamborena JI, Hazelton LR, NaBadalung D, et al. Retention of ERA direct overdenture attachments before and after fatigue loading. Int J Prosthodont, 1997, 10(2): 123–130

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Mericske-Stern R, Piotti M, Sirtes G. 3-D in vivo force measurements on mandibular implants supporting overdentures. A comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res, 1996, 7(4):387–396

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ekfeldt A, Johansson LA, Isaksson S. Implant-supported overdenture therapy: a retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont, 1997, 10(4):366–374

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center of Stomatological Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China

    Abdalbseet A. Fatalla, Ke Song  (宋 珂), Tianfeng Du  (杜田丰) & Yingguang Cao  (曹颖光)

  2. Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, College of Dentistry, Baghdad University, Baghdad, Iraq

    Abdalbseet A. Fatalla

Authors
  1. Abdalbseet A. Fatalla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ke Song  (宋 珂)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tianfeng Du  (杜田丰)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yingguang Cao  (曹颖光)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yingguang Cao  (曹颖光).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fatalla, A.A., Song, K., Du, T. et al. An in vitro investigation into retention strength and fatigue resistance of various designs of tooth/implant supported overdentures. J. Huazhong Univ. Sci. Technol. [Med. Sci.] 32, 124–129 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11596-012-0022-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11596-012-0022-x

Key words

Search

Navigation