Skip to main content

Retention of bar clip attachment for mandibular implant overdenture



The aim of the present study was to evaluate the retention and loss of retention after fatigue testing at different time intervals between two types of bar clip materials (digitally designed PEEK bar clip and regular Nylon bar clip).

Materials and methods

An epoxy model was constructed for a completely edentulous mandible. Two implants were placed according to prosthetically driven implant placement by a computer-guided surgical stent. Bar clips were digitally designed, 3D printed, and pressed into Poly Ether Ether Ketone (PEEK). Pick up of PEEK and nylon clips was performed on the dentures fitting surface using self-cured acrylic resin. Each study group was subjected to an insertion and removal fatigue test simulating 3 years of patient usage. Retention values were recorded using the universal testing machine at initial retention and after 1, 2, and 3 years of simulated usage. For proper sample sizing, 24 models and dentures (12 for each group) were used. An independent sample t-test and repeated measures analysis of variance were used to compare the data.


There were statistically significant differences in retention between the PEEK and nylon bar clips at the beginning of the experiment (p = 0.000*). But after 3 years of simulated use, there was no significant difference in retention between the test groups (p = 0.055, NS). After 3 years of simulated use, the retention of PEEK clips decreased by − 58.66% recording 17.37 ± 1.07 N, while the retention of nylon clip increased by + 2.99% recording 16.56 ± 0.88 N.


The digitally designed PEEK clip showed comparable retention results to the nylon clip after 3 years of simulated use.

Clinical relevance

Maintenance of bar attachment with PEEK clip offers a clinical solution after the wear of normal plastic clips, which is a cheap solution that is easily fabricated and picked up into the denture. Digital fabricated PEEK bar retentive inserts can be used in cases of bar attachment wear.

Peer Review reports


Oral rehabilitation of edentulous and partially edentulous patients has been improved by the development of implants and their different prosthetic options [1]. Several clinical trials have proved that placement of implants in mandibular retained and/or supported overdentures results in a better quality of life compared to conventional complete dentures [1,2,3,4].

Implant overdenture can either use splinted implants by bar attachments or un splinted implants by stud-type attachments [5, 6]. Many factors affect appropriate attachment selection, such as jaw morphology, inter arch distance, the desired retention, prosthesis type, inclination and number of implants, patient manual dexterity, financial options, and the availability for maintenance recall visits [7].

Bar attachment is used to splint implants with the lowest complications in the prosthetic superstructure and maximum patient satisfaction [8]. It offers stress-breaking action and cross-arch involvement, which allows occlusal forces to be shared between the abutments [9]. The ideal length of a single bar should range from 20 to 22 mm to accommodate two clips [10]. It also requires an inter-arch distance of a minimum of 15 mm [11].

The bar can be fabricated from metal or milled from a non-metal material such as zirconia and PEEK (Poly-ether-ether-ketone), while the bar clip can be fabricated from PEEK or Poly Oxy Methylene (POM) [12,13,14]. Polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) has also been introduced and employed as an attachment matrix, which is similar to elastic impression materials, offering a chairside quick solution [15].

PEEK was first developed in 1978 as a thermoplastic, polycyclic, semi-crystalline polymer obtained by binding ketone and ether functional groups with aryl rings [16]. It has superior mechanical properties with resistance to hydrolysis, chemical wear, and high temperatures [17]. It is a biologically inert material with no evidence of cytotoxicity or immunogenicity. It also offers corrosion resistance, low plaque affinity, and minimal creep [14].

In a study by Savabi et al. [18] it was reported that the retention forces for the bar attachments have decreased to (44%) after 5 years of follow-up. Regular bar maintenance depends on the activation of bar clips and even changing the clips [5, 11, 18].

The retention is the first factor responsible for patient satisfaction with the prosthesis, and it is defined as that quality inherent in the dental prosthesis acting to resist the forces of dislodgment along the path of placement [19, 20]. (33%) of prosthodontic complications are related to loss of retention [8]. The rate of attachment wear is related to its material of construction, which should be wear-resistant to maintain a stable retention force overtime. [12]

Burns et al. [39] concluded that the least accepted retention force gained by different attachment systems in implant‑retained overdenture was between 5 and 8 N in the long‑term function [21, 22]. Therefore, studies on the retention of attachments are very important to determine the selection of specific retention systems for the patient [23].

The bar overdenture with PEEK clip has low plaque accumulation with no gingival inflammation with high patient satisfaction in cleaning and maintenance compared to fixed full arch restorations [13]. The PEEK clip represents an alternative to metal ones with favourable prosthetic and clinical outcomes. It has high wear resistance which in turn decreases the number of maintenance visits and the need for changing the clip [14].

Aim of the study

The objective of the present investigation was to compare digitally designed PEEK bar clips with the well-known nylon clip in their initial retention force and after a simulated 3 years of bar attachment usage. The null hypothesis is that the bar attachment clip fabricated from different materials offers similar retention values in retaining mandibular overdenture.

Materials and methods

A control model standard was fabricated from a cast obtained from a completely edentulous mandible. Any existing undercuts were blocked. The duplication of the stone model was carried out using laboratory addition silicone material (REPLISIL 22N, dent-e-con, Germany) to obtain an epoxy resin model (Swiss Chem; construction chemicals, Egypt).

For surgical guide construction, Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) (parameters 85 KVP, 5 MA) was recorded for the model to create a DICOM file. The standard tessellation language file (STL file) of the model was also obtained using an intraoral scanner (MEDIT i700; MEDIT Corp). The STL file was superimposed on the DICOM file using the best-fit algorithm.

Using computer-aided design software (Exocad GMBH Dental CAD), a virtual lower denture was designed.

A prosthetically driven implant placement concept was clear in mind, therefore a surgical guide using the virtual designed lower denture was constructed by an implant planning software (real guide; 3diemme, Italy). The implants were placed bilaterally between the lateral incisor and canine. The surgical guide was printed using clear surgical guide resin (EPAX Clear Resin; EPAX 3D). The resultant surgical guide was finished and cleaned with alcohol to remove excess monomer.

Two dental implants (Internal Tapered; BIOHORIZONS) of 3.8 mm in diameter and 10.5 mm in length were loaded into the model. Two castable plastic abutments were tightened using a torque wrench at 25 N over the implants. With the aid of a dental surveyor, the plastic bar with a round cross-section was attached to the two plastic abutments using self-cure acrylic resin, creating a 2 mm clearance space between the bar and the model. The assembly was then unscrewed, cast in Ni–Cr alloy, and finished and polished. The finished bar was checked for passivity and then finally screwed to the implants (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Bar fabricated over the model

The model with the bar screwed on was scanned using a desktop scanner (Medit T500) after the application of scan spray powder (Alldent, Germany) to get the STL file of the model and bar. The STL file of the bar and model was imported to the Meshmixer software (MESHMIXER 3.5 software, Autodesk).

First, the PEEK clip design was drawn on the model by outlining the lingual, buccal, mesial, and distal extents (Fig. 2). The boundaries were smoothened. Undercuts were created on the buccal and lingual aspects of the bar clips by using an attract brush tool to ensure mechanical retention between the clip and the denture fitting surface in the pickup step [24] (Fig. 3).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Outlining the PEEK clip

Fig. 3
figure 3

The final for PEEK clip design with an outer surface undercut to provide mechanical retention with the denture

The designed clip was printed using (EPAX Dental Castable Resin; EPAX 3D). The clip wax pattern was pressed by the lost wax technique into PEEK (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Pressed PEEK clip

The epoxy model was duplicated into the stone cast on which 24 mandibular trial denture bases with waxed-up acrylic resin teeth (Zhengzhou Linker Medical Equipment Co., Ltd.) were fabricated. Mandibular trial dentures were flasked and packed with heat-cured resin (Denture Base Material; Vertex-Dental B.V.), then finished and polished with a hock attached to the denture geometric center.

The tested groups were classified as follows:

  • Group A Bar with a plastic (POM) clip attachment (control group) (Fig. 5).

  • Group B A bar with a PEEK clip attachment (Fig. 6).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Two nylon clips over the bar for pick up

Fig. 6
figure 6

Two PEEK clips over the bar for pick up

A light body rubber base was loaded into the denture, and the denture was tried on the model with a bar and clips loaded on it. Any pressure areas preventing the denture from complete seating or any areas responsible for denture frictional retention were removed. The retromolar pads were used as a reference for the complete seating of the denture base on the model [18].

Teflon and wax material were used to block any undercuts beneath the bar. Escape holes were made on the denture to act as an exit for the extra pickup material. The pickup was done by self-cured acrylic resin with the denture seated completely over the model. (Figs. 7 and 8).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Pick up of the nylon clip in the denture

Fig. 8
figure 8

Pick up of the PEEK clip in the denture

The specimen’s retention forces were measured using the Instron universal testing machine (model 3345; England). The denture was attached to the dynamic part of the universal testing machine via a screw hook. The direction of the pull forces was performed vertically.

The achieved maximum values of retention force were recorded at the beginning of the study (initial retention) and after 1, 2, and 3 years with an average of 1000 cycles per year based upon patients’ average of 3 insertions and removals per day [22, 25]. Twenty-four epoxy models and dentures were used (12 for each group) for proper statistical sample sizing.

The sample size was calculated using G Power version and according to previous studies [8, 25, 26].

Statistical methodology

The data was collected and entered into the computer using the SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science) program (version 21). The data was normally distributed by the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test of normality, so the parametric statistics were adopted. The mean, standard deviation, and 95% CI of the mean were used to describe the data.

Two studied independent, normally distributed variables were compared using an independent sample T-test. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used. Model assumptions were tested and found to be satisfactory except for Mauchly’s test of sphericity.


Comparisons in retention between two studied groups show a statistically significant difference in mean retention at the initial retention test and after different time intervals. (p = 0.000*). But after 3 years of stimulated use, there was no significant difference in retention values (p = 0.055 NS) (Fig. 9) (Table 1).

Fig. 9
figure 9

Bar chart of mean retention loss in (Newton) between the two studied groups at a different time of measurement primary retention versus one, two, and three years of use

Table 1 Retention in (Newton) between the two studied groups at various measurement times

The repeated measure analysis test revealed a statistically significant loss of the mean of retention of the PEEK clip attachment group at different years of use (p = 0.000*), with the exception of no statistically significant retention loss between the 2nd and 1st year of testing (p = 1.000). For the nylon clip attachment group, the mean of retention between 2 years and primary retention, 3rd, 1st year and 3rd and 2nd year was statistically significant at (p = 0.002), (p = 0.006*), and (p = 0.000*) respectively (Table 2).

Table 2 Repeated measure analysis of variance, comparing retention loss in (Newton) between different time periods of measurement (Primary retention vs one, two, and three years of use) in each studied group

An increase in the percentage of retention for the Nylon clip attachment group after 3 years of use was noticed by + 2.99% compared to primary retention and by + 8.76% compared to 2 years of use. While the PEEK clip attachment group showed an increase in retention after 2 years of use by + 3.72% compared to 1 year of use (Table 3).

Table 3 Percentage of retention loss in (Newton) between the two studied groups at various times of measurement Primary retention vs one, two, and three years of use


In completely edentulous patients that need full arch rehabilitation, the presence of some anatomical and surgical limitations can affect the implant placement positions and the number of implants, which necessitates the search for prosthetic solutions with perfect function and aesthetics and load distribution of implants [27]. The bar retained over denture offers a standard of care prosthetic solution by placing two implants in the canine area.

Complete denture digitalization used for implant surgical guide fabrication standardizes clinical results and research work and guarantees implant position according to prosthetically driven implant placement, leading to better load distribution between implants [28, 29].

A round cross-section bar (OT bar multisystem, Rhein83) design was selected in the present study to permit movement of the retained overdenture and allow better occlusal load distribution between implants and residual ridge [13].

The fabrication of the PEEK clip requires optical scanning of the bar attachment, which is more comfortable for patients with less nausea and anxiety compared to conventional impression [30, 31]. With the development of digital dentistry and computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology, the design of dental attachments and retentive inserts has become easier with perfect expectable results [24, 30].

The designed PEEK clip had an undercut in its polished surface to guarantee mechanical interlocking during pick- up on the intaglio surface of the denture [24].

The wear of retentive clips over bar attachments has been documented to directly influence the retention of overdentures, and attachment wear occurs as a result of friction between retentive attachment surfaces at insertion and removal or during masticatory cycles [20]. Williams et al. [32] reported that the plastic retentive clips, not the round bars, were responsible for the retention loss. For this reason, there is a need to evaluate the retention force of different bar clips if different materials.

The maximum dislodging force was identified as the highest force utilized before the complete separation of attachment components; it could be used as an alternative measurement of overdenture retention and differs with the number of insertions/removal cycles. These tests could enable the clinicians to choose the most efficient attachment system and proper material for each patient. The conventional Instron (IS) testing machine has been well recognized as a reliable and acceptable instrument to test retention forces in vitro [8, 33, 34].

Previous in vitro studies tested the changes in retention force between plastic clips and metal matrices. Plastic clips of poly-oxy-methylene (POM) reported fewer changes in retention compared to metallic ones. This may be attributed to their modulus of elasticity with superior resiliency. Consequently, the plastic clips turned out to be more prevalent and commonly used [33, 35].

Carbon fibers reinforcement is considered one of the recent innovations in the prosthodontics field. It has many applications, such as crowns, bridges, and full arch hybrid restorations. The reinforcement of PEEK with carbon fibers has a great impact on load absorption, resiliency, wear resistance, and patient comfort [36]. Recently, PEEK was introduced as an attachment tool due to its high mechanical properties such as high retention and wear resistance. Abdelrehim et al. concluded that BioHPP (PEEK) bar seems to be a solid candidate for bar fabrication with minimal loss of retention and better wear resistance of the clip [37].

In a clinical 1 year trial, Abdraboh et al. [14] reported that PEEK housing could be an effective alternative to metal housing for a milled bar over inclined implants in the mandible with favourable prosthetic and clinical outcomes. The PEEK housing showed higher satisfaction with retention, stability, speech, and esthetics and a lower incidence of female clip wear and renewal rate [14].

The results of the present study showed a significant difference in the values of initial retention forces where the PEEK clip documented higher retention forces in comparison to the nylon clip. However, an insignificant difference was recorded by the end of the 3 years study period. This result is in accordance with several clinical and in-vitro studies. In their study, Emera and Altonbary reported a significant difference in initial retention forces for the PEEK clip group over the POM clip group, although both clip materials showed no significant difference in retention loss after 1 year of mandibular overdenture clinical use over zirconia bar [13]. In a split-mouth clinical study, Bayer et al. [12] registered significant retention loss with PEEK clips in the first 3 months with a round cross-section metal bar. However, after 6 months, a stabilized retention loss with no statistically significant difference in the clinical performance of PEEK or POM clips was recorded [12].

Hammas et al. [38] concluded that PEEK clips showed more wear resistance than POM clips with metal or PEEK bars, and both materials showed in vitro comparable results concerning retention force [38].

The least reported acceptable retention force of different attachment systems for implant‑retained overdenture ranged between 5 and 8 N throughout the long‑term function. [39] Both studied groups reported higher values by the end of the study period of 3 years. Although results of in-vitro studies that evaluated retention forces of different attachment systems cannot completely mimic all clinical conditions such as exact saliva composition, oral environment, temperature, and patient parafunctional habits that may influence the results, they can point out the performance of the new attachment materials and their gradual retention loss to be used as a substitute for traditional ones.


With the limitations of the present study, it could be concluded that:

  1. 1-

    Virtually designed and fabricated PEEK clips demonstrated no statistically significant difference in final retention values from nylon clips after stimulated 3 years of use.

  2. 2-

    Application of digital designing of custom-made attachment clips provides ease for overdenture maintenance.

  3. 3-

    PEEK clips could be used as an alternative to nylon and metal bar clips with comparable retention values with resistance to wear and surface alteration.

  4. 4-

    This is an in-vitro study which cannot simulate oral cavity temperature, patient para functional habits, and the effect of different foods and beverages with either acidic or alkaline composition on the wear of different clip materials.

  5. 5-

    It is recommended to perform clinical ling term in vivo study for custom made PEEK clip attachments. It is also recommended to test the attachment performance with different denture cleansing solutions and to test the PEEK clip with different percentages of glass fiber reinforcement to improve its wear resistance.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.


  1. Stoumpis C, Kohal RJ. To splint or not to splint oral implants in the implant-supported overdenture therapy? A systematic literature review. J Oral Rehabil. 2011;38:857–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Thomason JM. The McGill Consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular 2-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Eu J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2002; 95–6.

  3. Doukas D, Michelinakis G, Smith PW, Barclay CW. 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. 2006;21:152–4.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kawai Y, Murakami H, Shariati B, Klemetti E, Blomfield JV, Billette L, et al. Do traditional techniques produce better conventional complete dentures than simplified techniques? J Dent. 2005;33:659–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Salehi R, Shayegh SS, Johnston WM, Hakimaneh SMR. Effects of interimplant distance and cyclic dislodgement on retention of LOCATOR and ball attachments: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;122:550–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Yilmaz B, Ozkir E, Johnston WM, McGlumphy E. Dislodgement force analysis of an overdenture attachment system. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123:291–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B, McGlumphy EA Jr, Seidt JJ, Johnston WM. Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123:96–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rutkunas V, Mizutani H, Takahashi H. Influence of attachment wear on retention of mandibular overdenture. J Oral Rehabil. 2007;34:41–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Samra R, Bhide S, Goyal C, Kaur T. Tooth supported overdenture: a concept overshadowed but not yet forgotten! J Oral Res Rev. 2015;7:16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Prasad DK, Prasad DA, Buch M. Selection of attachment systems in fabricating an implant supported overdenture. J Dent Implant. 2014;4:176–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gonuldas F, Tokar E, Ozturk C. Evaluation of the retention characteristics of various stud attachment systems for implant retained overdenture. Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2018;20:135–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bayer S, Komor N, Kramer A, Albrecht D, Mericske-Stern REN. Retention force of plastic clips on implant bars: a randomized controlled trial. Oral Impl Res Clin. 2012;23:1377–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Emera RMK, Altonbary GY. Retention force of zirconia bar retained implant overdenture: clinical comparative study between PEEK and plastic clips. Int Dent Res. 2019;9:92–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Abdraboh A, Elsyad M, Mourad S, Alameldeen H. Milled bar with PEEK and metal housings for inclined implants supporting mandibular overdentures: 1-year clinical, prosthetic, and patient-based outcomes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020;35:982–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Osman R, Abdel Aal M. Comparative assessment of retentive characteristics of nylon cap versus retention. Sil in ball-retained mandibular implant overdentures. A randomized clinical trial. Egypt Dent J. 2019;65:1787–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Heimer S, Schmidlin PR, Roos MSB. Surface properties of polyetheretherketone after different laboratory and chairside polishing protocols. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(3):419–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Najeeb S, Zafar MS, Khurshid Z, Najeeb S, Zafar MS, Khurshid Z, Siddiqui F. Applications of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in oral implantology and prosthodontics. J Prosthodont Res. 2016;60(1):12–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Savabi O, Nejatidanesh F, Yordshahian F. Retention of implant-supported overdenture with bar/clip and stud attachment designs. J Oral Implantol. 2013;39:140–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Driscoll CF, Freilich MA, Guckes AD, Knoernschild KL, Mcgarry TJ, Goldstein G, et al. The glossary of prosthodontic terms: ninth edition. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117:125–105.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Choi J-W, Yun B-H, Jeong C-M, Huh J-B. Retentive Properties of Two stud attachments with polyetherketoneketone or nylon insert in mandibular implant overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33:1079–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Botega DM, Mesquita MF, Henriques GEP, Vaz LG. Retention force and fatigue strength of overdenture attachment systems. J Oral Rehabil. 2004;31:884–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kamal Emera R, Elgamal M, Altonbary G. Retention force of all-zirconia, all-polyetheretherketone, and zirconia-polyetheretherketone telescopic attachments for implant-retained overdentures: in vitro comparative study. J Dent Implant. 2020;10:78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Taha NEKS, Dias DR, Oliveira TMC, Souza JAC, Leles CR. Patient satisfaction with ball and Equator attachments for single-implant mandibular overdentures: a short-term randomised crossover clinical trial. J Oral Rehabil. 2020;47:361–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Abdelaziz MS, El Abd EA, Tella M. Digital fabrication of polyetheretherketone retentive bar attachment inserts as overdenture maintenance: a dental technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Marin DOM, Leite ARP, de Oliveira Junior NM, Paleari AG, Pero AC, Compagnoni MA. Retention force and wear characteristics of three attachment systems after dislodging cycles. Braz Dent J. 2018;29:576–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Abdelaziz MS, Fawzy AM, Nassar GRM, HI,. Retention of different attachment systems for digitally designed mandibular implant overdenture. J Prosthodont. 2022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Scrascia R, Cicciù M, Manco C, Miccoli A, Cervino G. Angled screwdriver solutions and low-profile attachments in full arch rehabilitation with divergent implants. Appl Sci. 2021;11:1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Tasaka A, Matsunaga S, Odaka K, Ishizaki K, Ueda T, Abe S, et al. Accuracy and retention of denture base fabricated by heat curing and additive manufacturing. J Prosthodont Res. 2019;63:85–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lo Russo L, Salamini A, Troiano G, Guida L. Digital dentures: a protocol based on intraoral scans. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125:597–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cicciù M, Fiorillo L, D’Amico C, Gambino D, Amantia EM, Laino L, et al. 3D digital impression systems compared with traditional techniques in dentistry: a recent data systematic review. Materials. 2020;13:1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Beretta M, Manfredini M, Poli PP, Tansella S, Maiorana C. Full digital model-free maxillary prosthetic rehabilitation by means of one-piece implants : a proof of concept clinical report with three-years follow up. Prosthesis. 2022;4:202–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Williams BH, Ochiai KT, Baba T, Caputo AA. Retention and load transfer characteristics of implant-retained auricular prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22:366–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bayer S, Gruner M, Keilig L, Hultenschmidt R, Nicolay C, Bourauel CUK. Investigation of the wear of prefabricated attachments: an in vitro study of retention forces and fitting tolerances. Quintessence Int. 2007;38:229–37.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Petropoulos VCSW. Maximum dislodging forces of implant overdenture stud attachments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant. 2002;17:526–35.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Fromentin O, Lassauzay C, Abi Nader S, Feine J, De Albuquerque Junior RF. Testing the retention of attachments for implant overdentures: validation of an original force measurement system. J Oral Rehabil. 2010;37:54–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Fiorillo L, D’Amico C, Turkina AY, Nicita F, Amoroso G, Risitano G. Endo and exoskeleton: new technologies on composite materials. Prosthesis. 2020;2:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Abdelrehim A, Abdelhakim A ES. Influence of different materials on retention behavior of CAD-CAM fabricated bar attachments. J Prosthet Dent.

  38. Hammas M, El-Saadawy ME-AA. Effect of different bar attachment and clip materials on retention force for mandibular implant supported overdentures (an invitro study). ADJ-for Girls. 2018;5(2):195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Burns DR, Unger JW, Elswick RK, Beck DA. Prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures: part I-retention, stability, and tissue response. J Prosthet Dent. 1995;73:354–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors thank professor Hussien Elcharkawi (head of the prosthodontics department)


Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB). This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



HIN: article approval, operator in all the practical work, manuscript writing-interpretation-Concept—design—critical revision of the article. MSAEA: corresponding author, operator in all the practical work, writing of the manuscript-concept-design- interpretation—statistics-data collection-softwares. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Medhat Sameh Abdelaziz.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participants

Not Applicable.

Consent to publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nassar, H.I., Abdelaziz, M.S. Retention of bar clip attachment for mandibular implant overdenture. BMC Oral Health 22, 227 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: