Cargando…

In vitro retention capacity of two overdenture attachment systems: Locator® and Equator®

BACKGROUND: It is necessary to know the in vitro behavior of different attachment systems to be used clinically. The evolution of retention capacity over 10 years (14,600 insertion/de-insertion cycles) was determined in vitro, evaluating two overdenture attachment systems (Locator® and OT Equator®)....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mínguez-Tomás, Nieves, Alonso-Pérez-Barquero, Jorge, Fernández-Estevan, Lucía, Vicente-Escuder, Ángel, Selva-Otaolaurruchi, Eduardo J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medicina Oral S.L. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6057072/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30057711
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.54834
_version_ 1783341452309299200
author Mínguez-Tomás, Nieves
Alonso-Pérez-Barquero, Jorge
Fernández-Estevan, Lucía
Vicente-Escuder, Ángel
Selva-Otaolaurruchi, Eduardo J.
author_facet Mínguez-Tomás, Nieves
Alonso-Pérez-Barquero, Jorge
Fernández-Estevan, Lucía
Vicente-Escuder, Ángel
Selva-Otaolaurruchi, Eduardo J.
author_sort Mínguez-Tomás, Nieves
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: It is necessary to know the in vitro behavior of different attachment systems to be used clinically. The evolution of retention capacity over 10 years (14,600 insertion/de-insertion cycles) was determined in vitro, evaluating two overdenture attachment systems (Locator® and OT Equator®). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study used an implant replica compatible with the abutments of both systems. 10 Locator® and 10 OT Equator® attachments were screwed to the abutments. Nylon inserts were attached and tested, subjecting them to 14,600 insertion and de-insertion cycles (representing 10 years functional life) in axial direction. The universal test machine crosshead speed was 50 mm/min with a de-insertion range of 2 mm. RESULTS: The initial retention of Locator® was 17.02 N and of Equator® 16.36 N. After 14,600 cycles, Locator® suffered a mean loss of retention of 50.89%, while Equator® lost 69.28%. Both systems showed retention increases up to the first 1,000 cycles, which decreased thereafter up to 14.600 cycles. Statistically significant differences between the systems were found after 7,500 cycles. CONCLUSIONS: Both systems presented acceptable retention capacities after 14,600 cycles. Significant differences in retention force between the systems evolved after 7,500 cycles (5 years in vitro use). These results should be treated with caution and should be verified clinically. Key words:Denture, mandibular prosthesis implantation, attachment, dental implant-abutment connection, denture retention.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6057072
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Medicina Oral S.L.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60570722018-07-27 In vitro retention capacity of two overdenture attachment systems: Locator® and Equator® Mínguez-Tomás, Nieves Alonso-Pérez-Barquero, Jorge Fernández-Estevan, Lucía Vicente-Escuder, Ángel Selva-Otaolaurruchi, Eduardo J. J Clin Exp Dent Research BACKGROUND: It is necessary to know the in vitro behavior of different attachment systems to be used clinically. The evolution of retention capacity over 10 years (14,600 insertion/de-insertion cycles) was determined in vitro, evaluating two overdenture attachment systems (Locator® and OT Equator®). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study used an implant replica compatible with the abutments of both systems. 10 Locator® and 10 OT Equator® attachments were screwed to the abutments. Nylon inserts were attached and tested, subjecting them to 14,600 insertion and de-insertion cycles (representing 10 years functional life) in axial direction. The universal test machine crosshead speed was 50 mm/min with a de-insertion range of 2 mm. RESULTS: The initial retention of Locator® was 17.02 N and of Equator® 16.36 N. After 14,600 cycles, Locator® suffered a mean loss of retention of 50.89%, while Equator® lost 69.28%. Both systems showed retention increases up to the first 1,000 cycles, which decreased thereafter up to 14.600 cycles. Statistically significant differences between the systems were found after 7,500 cycles. CONCLUSIONS: Both systems presented acceptable retention capacities after 14,600 cycles. Significant differences in retention force between the systems evolved after 7,500 cycles (5 years in vitro use). These results should be treated with caution and should be verified clinically. Key words:Denture, mandibular prosthesis implantation, attachment, dental implant-abutment connection, denture retention. Medicina Oral S.L. 2018-07-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6057072/ /pubmed/30057711 http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.54834 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Medicina Oral S.L. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Mínguez-Tomás, Nieves
Alonso-Pérez-Barquero, Jorge
Fernández-Estevan, Lucía
Vicente-Escuder, Ángel
Selva-Otaolaurruchi, Eduardo J.
In vitro retention capacity of two overdenture attachment systems: Locator® and Equator®
title In vitro retention capacity of two overdenture attachment systems: Locator® and Equator®
title_full In vitro retention capacity of two overdenture attachment systems: Locator® and Equator®
title_fullStr In vitro retention capacity of two overdenture attachment systems: Locator® and Equator®
title_full_unstemmed In vitro retention capacity of two overdenture attachment systems: Locator® and Equator®
title_short In vitro retention capacity of two overdenture attachment systems: Locator® and Equator®
title_sort in vitro retention capacity of two overdenture attachment systems: locator® and equator®
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6057072/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30057711
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.54834
work_keys_str_mv AT mingueztomasnieves invitroretentioncapacityoftwooverdentureattachmentsystemslocatorandequator
AT alonsoperezbarquerojorge invitroretentioncapacityoftwooverdentureattachmentsystemslocatorandequator
AT fernandezestevanlucia invitroretentioncapacityoftwooverdentureattachmentsystemslocatorandequator
AT vicenteescuderangel invitroretentioncapacityoftwooverdentureattachmentsystemslocatorandequator
AT selvaotaolaurruchieduardoj invitroretentioncapacityoftwooverdentureattachmentsystemslocatorandequator