Skip to main content

Quantitative and qualitative assessment of the wear pattern of two attachment systems of dissimilar materials for mandibular implant-retained overdentures: an in-vitro study

Abstract

Background

Attachment material is one of the contributing factors to the degree of wear of the attachment components in mandibular implant-retained overdentures. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the wear behavior of 2 different attachment systems of dissimilar materials in mandibular implant-retained overdentures by qualitative and quantitative methods.

Methods

Two attachment systems of different materials were utilized (nā€‰=ā€‰16); Titach (Dental Evolutions Inc, Beverly Hills, CA, USA) with a titanium-to-titanium interface and Locator R-Tx (Zest Anchors Inc, Escondido, CA, USA) with a titanium-to-nylon interface. One thousand cycles of overdenture insertion and removal simulating 1-year clinical use were performed. All matrices were removed from the overdentures and all patrices were unscrewed from the implants for wear assessment quantitively using a stereomicroscope and qualitatively using a scanning electron microscope. Data were analyzed by using an independent sample t test.

Results

After cyclic loading, stereomicroscopic findings showed that the Titach group had statistically significant higher wear value than the Locator R-Tx group (pā€‰<ā€‰0.001). Moreover, scanning electron microscopy images showed noticeable abrasion in Titach patrix at the area of highest convexity. However, the Locator R-Tx matrix displayed an apparent tear of rubber inserts.

Conclusions

Titach attachment with the titanium-to-titanium interface revealed more wear than Locator R-Tx attachment with the titanium-to-nylon interface. Thus, the type of attachment material influences the degree of wear of the attachment components.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Implant-retained overdentures with attachments offer edentulous patients a better alternative to conventional complete dentures, as overdentures increase comfort, patient satisfaction, and retention [1,2,3]. The McGill and York Consensus Statements on overdentures recommend a 2-implant-retained overdenture in the mandibular arch as the standard treatment option for an edentulous mandibular arch, to increase complete denture retention [4, 5].

Numerous considerations, including the amount of retention necessary, the rate of wear, maintenance in the long term, and patient satisfaction, influence the choice of a specific attachment design [6,7,8,9]. Several attachment systems include bar, ball and socket, magnet, OT equator, Locator, and Titach attachments.

Due to wear over time, loss of attachment retention is the most frequent issue with implant-retained overdentures [10,11,12,13]. According to Lambrechts et al., [14] wear is a complicated phenomenon that is the end consequence of numerous interconnected processes acting together. Different types of wear are found, depending on various forms and methods of contact between materials. These include corrosive wear, abrasive wear, adhesive wear, and fatigue wear [15].

Several factors, including the type of attachment material [13, 16,17,18], the removal and insertion of prostheses [19], the angulation of implants [20,21,22,23], and the existence of parafunctional habits [24], may contribute to the wear and tear of attachment components.

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare by qualitative and quantitative methods the wear behavior of a Titach attachment with titanium-to-titanium interface and a Locator R-TX attachment with clear nylon inserts in mandibular implant-retained overdentures. The null hypothesis was that after recurring cycles of overdenture removal and insertion, the wear behavior of the Titach and Locator R-TX attachment systems in mandibular implant-retained overdentures would be the same.

Materials & methods

In this study, Titach attachment (Titach; Dental Evolutions Inc, Beverly Hills, CA, USA) and Locator R-Tx attachment (Zest anchors Inc, Escondido, CA, USA) were used. Both attachment systems had two parts, male and female part, known as ā€œpatrixā€ and ā€œmatrixā€ respectively, which were placed into one another to facilitate fastening. The matrix was integrated into the overdenture fitting surface and the patrix was attached to the implant. Titach patrix was made of titanium, whereas the locator R-Tx patrix was made of titanium carbon nitride coating with a pink aesthetic color. Female parts were fabricated from dissimilar materials. Titach matrix was composed of a titanium cap surrounded by a silicone sleeve, while locator R-Tx matrix was formed of titanium housing with various nylon inserts confined in it of different retention; zero retention insert (gray), low retention insert (blue), medium retention insert (pink) and high retention insert (clear) [20, 25].

A sample size of 16 mandibular implant-retained overdentures with 32 attachments was calculated with a software program (G*Power v3.1.9.2; Heinrich Heine University DĆ¼sseldorf) [26] supposing a 95% level of confidence and 80% power. Following the early results, it was deemed that no more attachments were needed because the sample size allowed for the identification of highly statistically significant differences.

A set of ready-made maxillary and mandibular completely edentulous silicone molds was used for pouring of one maxillary stone model and 16 mandibular stone models for fabrication of 16 mandibular complete dentures. The same mandibular mold was used for pouring a mandibular model made of epoxy resin (Ramses Medical Products Factory, Alexandria, Egypt) with a 7.5 mm width at the canine region. The epoxy resin was covered with mucosa simulating material made of flexible polyurethane of 1.5 mm thickness [25]. Maxillary and mandibular trial denture bases made of autopolymerizing acrylic resin (Special Tray Material; Acrostone Co Ltd, Cairo, Egypt) with wax occlusion rims were constructed on the stone models and mounted on a mean value articulator, on which maxillary and mandibular acrylic teeth (Acrostone Plus Double Layer anterior and posterior teeth; Acrostone Co Ltd, Cairo, Egypt) were arranged and adjusted. The intercanine distance in the mandibular arch was 22 mm (each was 11 mm from the midline), which simulates the distance between two natural canines [27].

Sixteen mandibular trial denture bases were constructed on the mounted stone models. The same set size mandibular acrylic teeth (size 22) were arranged on all the trial denture bases utilizing the same mounting while keeping the opposing maxillary trial denture base in place to ensure standardization of all the mandibular implant-retained overdentures. The mandibular trial denture bases were finally processed into heat-polymerized acrylic dentures (Denture Base Material; Acrostone Co Ltd, Cairo, Egypt).

Two implants (Implanova; Dental Evolutions Inc, Beverly Hills, CA, USA) of length 10 mm and diameter 3.5 mm were placed at the canine area parallel to each other. The 32 attachment caps were directly picked up using autopolymerizing resin. For Titach attachment (Titach; Dental Evolutions Inc, Beverly Hills, CA, USA), the silicone sleeve was placed on the cap during the pick-up, then after setting of the acrylic resin, the protruding part from the cap was cut off by using a sharp scalpel. For locator R-Tx attachment (Zest anchors Inc, Escondido, CA, USA), the black processing insert was used during the pick-up, then substituted with a clear nylon insert (Fig.Ā 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

a Titach attachments screwed to the implants. b Implant-retained overdenture after pick-up of Titach's caps. c Locator R-Tx attachments screwed to the implants. d Implant-retained overdenture after pick-up of locator R-Tx attachment with clear nylon insert

A vertical cyclic tensionā€“compression test was conducted utilizing a custom-made cyclic loading machine simulating overdenture insertion and removal [25]. Every overdenture was subjected to 1000 cycles, corresponding to 1-year clinical use with an average of 3 cycles each day [28, 29]. A T-shaped acrylic resin plate was fabricated to be attached to the occlusal surfaces of the acrylic resin teeth at the incisal and first molar regions of overdentures by using autopolymerizing resin. The center of the T-shaped plate was attached to the upper member of the cyclic loading machine to perform removal and insertion cycles of the overdentures [25] (Fig.Ā 2). Following cyclic loading, all attachment caps (female parts/matrices) were removed from the overdentures using an acrylic resin trimming bur and all male parts/patrices were unscrewed from the implants.

Fig. 2
figure 2

a T-shaped acrylic resin plate attached to the occlusal surfaces of the acrylic resin teeth at the incisal and first molar regions of overdentures by using autopolymerizing resin. b The center of the T-shaped plate with the overdenture attached to the upper member of the cyclic loading machine

Quantitative analysis of wear patterns of both attachment systems (nā€‰=ā€‰32) was inspected by measuring the inner circumference of the attachmentā€™s matrix as well as the outer circumference of attachmentā€™s patrix under a stereomicroscope (B016, Olympus, Japan; Software: Toup view, version 3.7) atā€‰Ć—ā€‰25 magnification. According to previous studies [20, 30,31,32,33,34], stereomicroscopy analysis with standardized in vitro conditions exhibited accurate measurements. The measurements were acquired before and after cyclic loading by 2 operators and the mean of the two readings was calculated. Then, the absolute difference between before and after cyclic loading was considered the wear value. In addition, qualitative evaluation of the surface topography of both attachment systems (nā€‰=ā€‰32) was observed by scanning electron microscopy (JSM-IT200; JEOL Ltd, Anhui, China) at different magnifications.

Statistical analysis was performed by using a statistical software program (IBM SPSS Statistics, v23; IBM Corp). The Kolmogorovā€’Smirnov test of normality did not show any significance in the distribution of variables; therefore, parametric statistics were used. The test used was an independent sample t test. Furthermore, the interexaminer reliability was calculated by using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between two operators for each reading. ICC was rated as follows [35]:ā€‰<ā€‰0.40: ā€œpoorā€, 0.40ā€“0.59: ā€œfairā€, 0.60ā€“0.74: ā€œgoodā€ and 0.75ā€“1: ā€œexcellentā€. (Ī±ā€‰=ā€‰0.05).

Results

Regarding the stereomicroscopic measurements, an excellent degree of interexaminer reliability (ICCā€‰=ā€‰0.99, 95% CI) was found between the two operators. The matrix of the Locator group displayed a statistically significant higher wear value with a meanā€‰=ā€‰73.72 Āµm compared with that of the Titach group with a meanā€‰=ā€‰24.41 Āµm after cyclic loading (pā€‰<ā€‰0.001). In contrast, the patrix of the Titach group showed a statistically significant higher wear value with a meanā€‰=ā€‰87.37 Āµm compared with that of the Locator group with a meanā€‰=ā€‰1.93 Āµm after cyclic loading (pā€‰<ā€‰0.001) (Table 1). Moreover, the wear values of matrix and patrix in each group were summed and considered total wear. The Titach group exhibited statistically significant higher total wear value with a meanā€‰=ā€‰111.79 Āµm than the Locator group with a meanā€‰=ā€‰91.68 Āµm (Table 1, Fig.Ā 3).

Table 1 Wear values of the matrix and patrix in the Titach and Locator R-Tx groups
Fig. 3
figure 3

Stereomicroscopy images (original magnificationā€‰Ć—ā€‰25). A software program (Toup view, version 3.7) was used to measure the inner circumference of the attachment matrix and outer circumference of the attachment patrix. a Titach matrix. b Locator R-Tx matrix. c Titach patrix. d Locator R-Tx patrix

The attachment surfaces of each group were observed by a scanning electron microscope before and after cyclic loading. The Titach patrix presented more noticeable wear changes than the matrix in the form of scratches, abrasion and deformation, especially in the area of highest convexity. Moreover, the inner surface of Titach showed accumulation of metallic powder produced from titanium-to-titanium friction. Furthermore, the patrix of the locator R-Tx group had an accumulation of nylon remnants along the narrower coronal area. However, the matrix of the Locator R-Tx group displayed more apparent wear changes than the patrix in the form of a tear of rubber inserts, surface irregularities and deformations along the inner circumference (Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Scanning electron microscope images before cyclic loading (original magnificationsā€‰Ć—ā€‰16), a Titach patrix. b Titach matrix, c Locator R-Tx patrix, d Locator R-Tx matrix

Fig. 5
figure 5

Scanning electron microscope images of Titach attachment after cyclic loading. A Titach patrix atā€‰Ć—ā€‰16 magnification revealing an obvious band of wear and abrasion across the height of contour. B Higher magnification (Ɨā€‰100) showing severe wear with metal sloughing. C Titach matrix showing a noticeable wear along the inner circumference. D Higher magnification (Ɨā€‰75) showing severe wear with metal sloughing

Fig. 6
figure 6

Scanning electron microscope images of the inner surface of the Titach matrix (original magnificationā€‰Ć—ā€‰75,ā€‰Ć—ā€‰150,ā€‰Ć—ā€‰350). a Titach matrix before cyclic loading showing regular manufacturing lines. b, c Titach matrix after cyclic loading revealing accumulation of metallic powder

Fig. 7
figure 7

Scanning electron microscope images of Locator R-Tx patrix after cyclic loading showing accumulation of nylon remnants along the narrower coronal area, Aā€‰Ć—ā€‰16 magnification, Bā€‰Ć—ā€‰100 magnification

Fig. 8
figure 8

Scanning electron microscope images of the Locator R-Tx matrix after cyclic loading presenting a noticeable tear and deformation along inner circumference, Aā€‰Ć—ā€‰16 magnification, Bā€‰Ć—ā€‰75 magnification, Cā€‰Ć—ā€‰150 magnification

Discussion

The current study investigated 2 attachment designs, Titach and Locator R-Tx, as they were the only compatible attachments with the used implant system. Wear investigation was conducted in an in-vitro study to standardize occlusal loadings away from the absence of other intraoral factors. The present study revealed that the repeated cycles of overdenture removal and insertion significantly have led to different wear behavior in each attachment systems; thus, the null hypothesis was rejected.

Maxillary and mandibular stone casts were mounted on a mean value articulator and acrylic teeth were arranged. The maxillary record base was kept on the articulator while the 16 mandibular record bases were interchanged on the same mounting to preserve the same maxillo-mandibular relation during arrangement of mandibular acrylic teeth to ensure standardization of all the mandibular implant-retained overdentures.

In the epoxy resin edentulous mandibular model, implants were placed parallel to one another based on the suggested implant placement for non-splinted implant-retained overdentures: parallel, in the path of insertion of overdentures, and perpendicular to the occlusal plane to function well [21,22,23].

Wear frequently occurs within the first 12 months of use, necessitating more frequent maintenance of the attachments [8, 9, 11]. For this reason, the current study was carried out after 1000 cycles of removal and insertion, which correspond to one year of use, to mimic the clinical wear patterns of attachment systems [29, 28].

The type of attachment material influences the degree of wear of the attachment components. Thus, stereomicroscopic findings in the current study reported that the Locator R-Tx rubber matrices manifsted more wear and deformity than the Titach titanium ones. In contrast, the Titach titanium patrices demonstrated more wear than the Locator male ones. This may be attributed to the titanium carbon nitride coating of Locator R-Tx which was more wear resistant [28, 36].

Furthermore, locator R-Tx attachment is made of different materials with different hardnesses; nylon matrix and metal patrix, so most of the wear had occurred in the nylon matrix. This was in accordance with a previous clinical study by Hahnel et al. [37], which showed relevant signs of nylon insert deterioration in clinical use. The nylon inserts are fabricated from polyamide, which is well known to absorb ambient moisture, impairing its mechanical properties and indicating a significant uptake of water of the nylon inserts in comparison to unworn systems. In addition, an in-vitro study by Castrillon et al. [38] reported that frictional wear of locator attachments placed at a 0Ā° position resulted in a decrease of up to 50% in retention of the clear nylon inserts after a simulated 2 years of wear.

Titach attachment is made of titanium matrix and patrix. Titach patrix has a convex form that may have undergone more wear as a result of friction between metal surfaces of the same hardness and frictional coefficient. The results of studies conducted by Yabul et al. [13] Sonbaty et al. [20], Bayer et al. [17], and Branchi et al. [18] investigating metal to metal attachments were similar to those of the present study, showing that the titanium patrix was characterized by the highest wear rate.

Moreover, when evaluating the total wear of each attachment system, the Titach group had undergone more wear than the Locator R-Tx group. This was correlated with a previous study by Ramadan and Mohamed [25] which reported that Titach attachments showed a greater percentage change in the value of retentive force in the form of a reduction in retention (27%) than the Locator R-Tx group (14%). This may be attributed to the fact that wear and deformation can cause loss of retention as the Titach attachment with titanium-to-titanium interface had undergone higher wear, leading to more loss in retentive force values than the resilient nylon insert of the Locator attachment.

However, the wear pattern and surface alteration of the Titach attachment in the current study did not affect its final retentive force after cyclic loading, which was reported in a previous study by Ramadan and Mohamed [25] as higher initial and final retentive forces utilizing Titach attachments compared with utilizing Locator attachments. Nevertheless, implant-retained overdentures with Titach attachments revealed greater loss in retentive force values than Locator attachments after 1-year of mimicked clinical use, and they revealed greater final retentive force values than Locator R-Tx attachments.

Scanning electron microscopy images of Titach patrix demonstrated an obvious band of wear and abrasion across the height of contour. In addition, surface irregularities were noted in the Titach matrices. This may be attributed to the friction caused by the titanium-to-titanium interface. This finding was the same of previous studies [13, 17, 18, 20] which reported that the metal matrix displayed distinct wear patterns due to the same hardness and frictional coefficient of the metallic surfaces when coming into contact with each other. However, scanning electron microscopy images of the Locator R-Tx matrices showed more noticeable wear than the Locator R-Tx patrices in the form of a tear of rubber inserts and surface irregularities. This was consistent with Wichmann et al. [16], who documented that the Locator nylon inserts disclosed recognizable forms of deformation and wear after cyclic loading.

The limitation encountered in the current study was in its in-vitro nature, as it was challenging to precisely replicate the conditions present in the oral cavity. Attachment wear can be influenced by a number of variables, including parafunctional oral habits, temperature, salivary components, dental plaque, and the usage of denture cleansing solutions [15, 28]. Therefore, it is recommended that clinical investigations with long-term follow-up be conducted to verify the findings of the current in vitro study. In addition, volumetric wear quantification of both attachment systems by high-precision industrial scanners is recommended in future studies.

Conclusions

Considering the limitations of this in vitro study, the following conclusions were drawn:

  1. 1-

    Titach attachment with the titanium-to-titanium interface showed more total wear than Locator R-Tx attachment with the titanium-to-nylon interface after mimicking 1 year of clinical use.

  2. 2-

    Titach attachment presented through scanning electron microscopic findings a distinct pattern of wear and deformation in both matrix and patrix, whereas Locator R-Tx attachment with nylon insert showed identifiable tear signs in the matrix after mimicking 1 year of clinical use.

Availability of data and materials

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

References

  1. Mahanna FF, Elsyad MA, Mourad SI, Abozaed HW. Satisfaction and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life of Different Attachments Used for Implant-Retained Overdentures in Subjects with Resorbed Mandibles: A Crossover Trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020;35(2):423ā€“31.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  2. Awad MA, Rashid F, Feine JS, Overdenture Effectiveness Study Team Consortium. The effect of mandibular 2-implant overdentures on oral health-related quality of life: an international multicentre study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25(1):46ā€“51.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  3. Emami E, Heydecke G, RomprĆ© PH, de Grandmont P, Feine JS. Impact of implant support for mandibular dentures on satisfaction, oral and general health-related quality of life: a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(6):533ā€“44.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  4. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, et al. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures: mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002;17(4):601ā€“2.

    PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  5. Thomason JM, Feine J, Exley C, Moynihan P, MĆ¼ller F, Naert I, et al. Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patientsā€“the York Consensus Statement. Br Dent J. 2009;207(4):185ā€“6.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  6. Liu W, Zhang X, Qing H, Wang J. Effect of LOCATOR attachments with different retentive forces on the stability of 2-implant-retained mandibular overdenture. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124(2):224ā€“9.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  7. GonƧalves F, Campestrini VLL, Rigo-Rodrigues MA, Zanardi PR. Effect of the attachment system on the biomechanical and clinical performance of overdentures: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(4):589ā€“94.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  8. MacEntee MI, Walton JN, Glick N. A clinical trial of patient satisfaction and prosthodontic needs with ball and bar attachments for implant-retained complete overdentures: three-year results. J Prosthet Dent. 2005;93(1):28ā€“37.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  9. Mericske-Stern R, Probst D, Fahrlander F, Schellenberg M. Within-subject comparison of two rigid bar designs connecting two interforaminal implants: patientsā€™ satisfaction and prosthetic results. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2009;11(3):228ā€“37.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  10. Trakas T, Michalakis K, Kang K, Hirayama H. Attachment systems for implant retained overdentures: A literature review. Implant Dent. 2006;15(1):24ā€“34.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  11. ELsyad MA, Elhaddad AA, Khirallah AS. Retentive properties of O-ring and Locator attachments for implant-retained maxillary overdentures: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont. 2018;27(6):568ā€“76.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  12. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90(2):121ā€“32.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  13. Yabul A, Dayan C, Geckili O, Bilhan H, Tuncer N. Evaluation of volumetric wear of abutments on the retention loss of ball attachment systems in implant-retained overdentures: An in vitro study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018;20(5):778ā€“84.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  14. Lambrechts P, Debels E, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B. How to simulate wear? Overview of existing methods. Dent Mater. 2006;22(8):693ā€“701.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  15. 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):429ā€“40.

    PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  16. Wichmann N, Kern M, Taylor T, Wille S, Passia N. Retention and wear of resin matrix attachments for implant overdentures. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2020;110:103901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103901.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  17. Bayer S, Steinheuser D, GrĆ¼ner M, Keilig L, Enkling N, Stark H, et al. Comparative study of four retentive anchor systems for implant supported overdentures retention force changes. Gerodontology. 2009;26(4):268ā€“72.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  18. Branchi R, Vangi D, Virga A, Guertin G, Fazi G. Resistance to wear of four matrices with ball attachments for implant overdentures: a fatigue study. J Prosthodont. 2010;19(8):614ā€“9.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  19. Kim SM, Choi JW, Jeon YC, Jeong CM, Yun MJ, Lee SH, et al. Comparison of changes in retentive force of three stud attachments for implant overdentures. J Adv Prosthodont. 2015;7(4):303ā€“11.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  PubMed CentralĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  20. Elsonbaty MA, Alshimy AM, Abdul-Monem MM, Neena AF. 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.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  21. Al-Ghafli SA, Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Kang K. 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):140ā€“7.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  22. Ogawa T, Dhaliwal S, Naert I, Mine A, Kronstrom M, Sasaki K, et al. Effect of tilted and short distal implants on axial forces and bending moments in implants supporting fixed dental prostheses: An in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont. 2010;23(6):566ā€“73.

    PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  23. Wakam R, Benoit A, Mawussi KB, Gorin C. Evaluation of Retention, Wear, and Maintenance of Attachment Systems for Single- or Two-Implant-Retained Mandibular Overdentures: A Systematic Review. Materials (Basel). 2022;15(5):1933.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  24. Hsu YT, Fu JH, Al-Hezaimi K, Wang HL. Biomechanical implant treatment complications: a systematic review of clinical studies of implants with at least 1 year of functional loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27(4):894ā€“904.

    PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  25. Ramadan RE, Mohamed FS. Retention of mandibular implant-retained overdentures with two different attachment designs: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(5):738.e1-738.e6.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  26. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175ā€“91.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  27. ELsyad MA, Maryod WH, Mostafa AZ. Effect of Implant Position on Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Locator-Retained Mandibular Overdentures: A 1-Year Prospective Study. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(2):e699ā€“704.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  28. Choi JW, Bae JH, Jeong CM, Huh JB. Retention and wear behaviors of two implant overdenture stud-type attachments at different implant angulations. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(5):628ā€“35.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  29. Kobayashi M, Srinivasan M, Ammann P, Perriard J, Ohkubo C, MĆ¼ller F, et al. Effects of in vitro cyclic dislodging on retentive force and removal torque of three overdenture attachment systems. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25(4):426ā€“34.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  30. da Silva GG, Shimano MVW, Macedo AP, da Costa Valente ML, Dos Reis AC. InĀ vitro assessment of polyetheretherketone for an attachment component for an implant-retained overdenture. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;127(2):319.e1ā€“319.e8 .

  31. Ī’ei M, Kamalakidis SN, Pissiotis AL, Michalakis K, Naka O. Retentive force variations in three polyamide and a polyetheretherketone denture attachments for implant-supported overdentures: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2023:S0022-3913(23)00275-5.

  32. Koike T, Kubo K, Kono T, Ueda T, Sakurai K. Retention force and allowable range of the angle of an implant-supported overdenture attachment system using healing screws and a silicone resilient denture liner. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(4):630ā€“4.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  33. Valente MLC, Shimano MVW, Agnelli JAM, Dos Reis AC. Retention force and deformation of an innovative attachment model for mini-implant-retained overdentures. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121(1):129ā€“34.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  34. Rutkunas V, Dirse J, Kules D, Simonaitis T. Misfit simulation on implant prostheses with different combinations of engaging and nonengaging titanium bases. Part 1: Stereomicroscopic assessment of the active and passive fit. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;129(4):589ā€“96.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  35. Cicchetti D. Interreliability standards in psychological evaluations. Psychol Assess. 1994;6(4):284ā€“90.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  36. Del Castillo R, Chochlidakis K, Galindo-Moreno P, Ercoli C. Titanium nitride coated implant abutments: from technical aspects and soft tissue biocompatibility to clinical applications. A literature review. J Prosthodont. 2022;31(7):571ā€“8.

  37. Hahnel S, Alamanos C, Schneider-Feyrer S, Stƶckle M, Rosentritt M. Investigation of clinical and laboratory wear in locator-supported, implant-retained overdentures. Int J Prosthodont. 2018;31(4):334ā€“7.

    ArticleĀ  PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  38. Castrillon JM, Piermatti J, Achong-Bowe R, Hardigan P, Thompson J. Frictional wear of stud implant overdenture abutments after 2 years of in vitro simulated function. Gen Dent. 2022;70(5):54ā€“7.

    PubMedĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Mr Nasr Eldin Mostafa for his help in photographing.

Funding

Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

RER contributed to conceptualization, methodology, software, data curation, and writing of the original draft. FSM contributed to supervision, writingā€”review & editing, visualization, and validation. MEA contributed to conceptualization, methodology, software, data curation, and writing of the original draft. All authors contributed to critical revision and approval of the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mervat E. Abd-Ellah.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisherā€™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 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) 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

Ramadan, R.E., Mohamed, F.S. & Abd-Ellah, M.E. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of the wear pattern of two attachment systems of dissimilar materials for mandibular implant-retained overdentures: an in-vitro study. BMC Oral Health 23, 948 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03693-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03693-6

Keywords