Using an Attachment System with PEEK Matrices for Single-Implant Overdentures: In Vitro Retention Force
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sample Preparation
2.2. Cycling
2.3. Data Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Angle | Source | df | Mean Square | F | p-Value * |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0° | Groups | 3 | 8222.981 | 177.278 | <0.001 |
Periods | 6 | 91.076 | 15.874 | <0.001 | |
Interaction | 18 | 40.727 | 7.098 | <0.001 | |
10° | Groups | 3 | 6439.278 | 269.970 | <0.001 |
Periods | 6 | 106.863 | 10.354 | <0.001 | |
Interaction | 18 | 123.836 | 11.998 | <0.001 | |
20° | Groups | 3 | 2516.817 | 201.776 | <0.001 |
Periods | 6 | 45.893 | 8.612 | <0.001 | |
Interaction | 18 | 39.731 | 7.456 | <0.001 |
Angle | Groups * | Intercept | Beta | Beta/100 Cycles | R2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0° | A | 33.78 | −0.01 | −1 | 0.293 |
B | 5.14 | −7.37 × 10−4 | 0.065 | ||
C | 10.07 | −1.6 × 10−3 | 0.177 | ||
D | 13.06 | −1.07 × 10−3 | 0.259 | ||
10° | A | 29.29 | −0.01 | −1 | 0.396 |
B | 2.28 | −6.98 × 10−4 | 0.027 | ||
C | 5.15 | −2.51 × 10−5 | 3.126 × 10−5 | ||
D | 6.51 | 1.04 × 10−3 | 0.064 | ||
20° | A | 17.26 | −8.7 × 10−3 | 0.340 | |
B | 1.07 | −2.72 × 10−5 | 8.711 × 10−4 | ||
C | 1.86 | −4.87 × 10−5 | 6.1 × 10−4 | ||
D | 2.49 | −3.81 × 10−4 | 0.029 |
Pairwise Comparisons | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Measure: Retention_N | ||||||
(I) Group | (J) Group | Mean Difference (I–J) | Std. Error | Sig.a | 95% Confidence Interval for Difference a | |
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||||
A—Locator | B—Novaloc w. white attachments | 24.836 * | 1.151 | 0.000 | 21.622 | 28.050 |
C—Novaloc w. yellow attachments | 20.255 * | 1.151 | 0.000 | 17.041 | 23.469 | |
D—Novaloc w. green attachments | 17.051 * | 1.151 | 0.000 | 13.837 | 20.265 | |
B—Novaloc w. white attachments | A—Locator | −24.836 * | 1.151 | 0.000 | −28.050 | −21.622 |
C—Novaloc w. yellow attachments | −4.581 * | 1.151 | 0.002 | −7.795 | −1.367 | |
D—Novaloc w. green attachments | −7.785 * | 1.151 | 0.000 | −10.999 | −4.571 | |
C—Novaloc w. yellow attachments | A—Locator | −20.255 * | 1.151 | 0.000 | −23.469 | −17.041 |
B—Novaloc w. white attachments | 4.581 * | 1.151 | 0.002 | 1.367 | 7.795 | |
D—Novaloc w. green attachments | −3.204 | 1.151 | 0.051 | −6.418 | 0.010 | |
D—Novaloc w. green attachments | A—Locator | −17.051 * | 1.151 | 0.000 | −20.265 | −13.837 |
B—Novaloc w. white attachments | 7.785 * | 1.151 | 0.000 | 4.571 | 10.999 | |
C—Novaloc w. yellow attachments | 3.204 | 1.151 | 0.051 | −0.010 | 6.418 |
Multiple Comparisons | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Measure: Resistance_10° | ||||||
Bonferroni | ||||||
(I) Group | (J) Group | Mean Difference (I–J) | Std. Error | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval | |
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||||
A—Locator | B—Novaloc w. white attachments | 21.1590 * | 0.82552 | 0.000 | 18.8542 | 23.4638 |
C—Novaloc w. yellow attachments | 18.5840 * | 0.82552 | 0.000 | 16.2792 | 20.8888 | |
D—Novaloc w. green attachments | 16.7884 * | 0.82552 | 0.000 | 14.4836 | 19.0933 | |
B—Novaloc w. white attachments | A—Locator | −21.1590 * | 0.82552 | 0.000 | −23.4638 | −18.8542 |
C—Novaloc w. yellow attachments | −2.5750 * | 0.82552 | 0.021 | −4.8798 | −0.2702 | |
D—Novaloc w. green attachments | −4.3706 * | 0.82552 | 0.000 | −6.6754 | −2.0657 | |
C—Novaloc w. yellow attachments | A—Locator | −18.5840 * | 0.82552 | 0.000 | −20.8888 | −16.2792 |
B—Novaloc w. white attachments | 2.5750 * | 0.82552 | 0.021 | 0.2702 | 4.8798 | |
D—Novaloc w. green attachments | −1.7956 | 0.82552 | 0.218 | −4.1004 | 0.5093 | |
D—Novaloc w. green attachments | A—Locator | −16.7884 * | 0.82552 | 0.000 | −19.0933 | −14.4836 |
B—Novaloc w. white attachments | 4.3706 * | 0.82552 | 0.000 | 2.0657 | 6.6754 | |
C—Novaloc w. yellow attachments | 1.7956 | 0.82552 | 0.218 | −0.5093 | 4.1004 |
Multiple Comparisons | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Measure: Resistance_20° | ||||||
Bonferroni | ||||||
(I) Group | (J) Group | Mean Difference (I–J) | Std. Error | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval | |
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||||
A—Locator | B—Novaloc w. white attachments | 12.6339 * | 0.59698 | 0.000 | 10.9671 | 14.3006 |
C—Novaloc w. yellow attachments | 11.8473 * | 0.59698 | 0.000 | 10.1805 | 13.5140 | |
D—Novaloc w. green attachments | 11.3576 * | 0.59698 | 0.000 | 9.6908 | 13.0243 | |
B—Novaloc w. white attachments | A—Locator | −12.6339 * | 0.59698 | 0.000 | −14.3006 | −10.9671 |
C—Novaloc w. yellow attachments | −0.7866 | 0.59698 | 1.000 | −2.4533 | 0.8802 | |
D—Novaloc w. green attachments | −1.2763 | 0.59698 | 0.236 | −2.9430 | 0.3905 | |
C—Novaloc w. yellow attachments | A—Locator | −11.8473 * | 0.59698 | 0.000 | −13.5140 | −10.1805 |
B—Novaloc w. white attachments | 0.7866 | 0.59698 | 1.000 | −0.8802 | 2.4533 | |
D—Novaloc w. green attachments | −0.4897 | 0.59698 | 1.000 | −2.1565 | 1.1770 | |
D—Novaloc w. green attachments | A—Locator | −11.3576 * | 0.59698 | 0.000 | −13.0243 | −9.6908 |
B—Novaloc w. white attachments | 1.2763 | 0.59698 | 0.236 | −0.3905 | 2.9430 | |
C—Novaloc w. yellow attachments | 0.4897 | 0.59698 | 1.000 | −1.1770 | 2.1565 |
References
- Al-Rafee, M.A. The epidemiology of edentulism and the associated factors: A literature Review. J. Fam. Med. Prim. Care 2020, 9, 1841–1843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cunha, T.R.; Della Vecchia, M.P.; Regis, R.R.; Ribeiro, A.B.; Muglia, V.A.; Mestriner, W., Jr.; de Souza, R.F. A randomised trial on simplified and conventional methods for complete denture fabrication: Masticatory performance and ability. J. Dent. 2013, 41, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Thomason, J.M.; Kelly, S.A.; Bendkowski, A.; Ellis, J.S. Two implant retained overdentures--a review of the literature supporting the McGill and York consensus statements. J. Dent. 2012, 40, 22–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Feine, J.S.; Carlsson, G.E.; Awad, M.A.; Chehade, A.; Duncan, W.J.; Gizani, S.; Head, T.; Lund, J.P.; MacEntee, M.; Mericske-Stern, R.; et al. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Montreal, Quebec, 24–25 May 2002. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2002, 17, 601–602. [Google Scholar]
- Narby, B.; Kronstrom, M.; Soderfeldt, B.; Palmqvist, S. Changes in attitudes toward desire for implant treatment: A longitudinal study of a middle-aged and older Swedish population. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2008, 21, 481–485. [Google Scholar]
- Meijer, H.J.; Raghoebar, G.M.; Van ‘t Hof, M.A. Comparison of implant-retained mandibular overdentures and conventional complete dentures: A 10-year prospective study of clinical aspects and patient satisfaction. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2003, 18, 879–885. [Google Scholar]
- Thomason, J.M.; Feine, J.; Exley, C.; Moynihan, P.; Muller, F.; Naert, I.; Ellis, J.S.; Barclay, C.; Butterworth, C.; Scott, B.; et al. Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients—The York Consensus Statement. Br. Dent. J. 2009, 207, 185–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlsson, G.E. Implant and root supported overdentures—A literature review and some data on bone loss in edentulous jaws. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2014, 6, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Srinivasan, M.; Makarov, N.A.; Herrmann, F.R.; Muller, F. Implant survival in 1- versus 2-implant mandibular overdentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2016, 27, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Pan, S.; Dong, J.; Mo, Z.; Fan, Y.; Feng, H. Influence of implant number on the biomechanical behaviour of mandibular implant-retained/supported overdentures: A three-dimensional finite element analysis. J. Dent. 2013, 41, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sakaguchi, R.L.; Powers, J.M. Craig’s Restorative Dental Materials, 13th ed.; Elsevier: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Fromentin, O.; Picard, B.; Tavernier, B. In vitro study of the retention and mechanical fatigue behavior of four implant overdenture stud-type attachments. Pract. Periodontics Aesthet. Dent. 1999, 11, 391–397, quiz 398. [Google Scholar]
- Gamborena, J.I.; Hazelton, L.R.; NaBadalung, D.; Brudvik, J. Retention of ERA direct overdenture attachments before and after fatigue loading. Int. J. Prosthodont. 1997, 10, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Dental Overdentures Market Analysis, Size, Trends|United States|2018–2024. 2018. 880p. Available online: https://idataresearch.com/product/dental-overdentures-market (accessed on 5 March 2023).
- Abi Nader, S.; de Souza, R.F.; Fortin, D.; De Koninck, L.; Fromentin, O.; Albuquerque Junior, R.F. Effect of simulated masticatory loading on the retention of stud attachments for implant overdentures. J. Oral Rehabil. 2011, 38, 157–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thu, K.M.; Kanazawa, M.; Thuy, V.L.; Asami, M.; Sat, D.; Minakuchi, S. Clinical trend of retention for mandibular single implant overdentures using locator attachment. J. Dent. Health Oral Disord. Ther. 2019, 10, 193–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guedat, C.; Nagy, U.; Schimmel, M.; Muller, F.; Srinivasan, M. Clinical performance of LOCATOR(R) attachments: A retrospective study with 1–8 years of follow-up. Clin. Exp. Dent. Res. 2018, 4, 132–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaezi, M.; Yang, S.F. Extrusion-based additive manufacturing of PEEK for biomedical applications. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2015, 10, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maksimov, R.D.; Kubat, J. Time and temperature dependent deformation of poly(ether ether ketone) (PEEK). Mech. Compos. Mater. 1997, 33, 517–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Najeeb, S.; Zafar, M.S.; Khurshid, Z.; Siddiqui, F. Applications of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in oral implantology and prosthodontics. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2016, 60, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yue, Q.; Yilmaz, B.; Abou-Ayash, S.; Zimmermann, P.; Bragger, U.; Schimmel, M. Use of an attachment system with angulated abutments and polyetheretherketone inserts to retain a maxillary overdenture: A clinical report. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2020, 124, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Arnold, C.; Stampa, C.; Schweyen, R.; Hey, J.; Boeckler, A. Retentive Characteristics of a New Attachment System for Hybrid Dentures. Materials 2020, 13, 3434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fromentin, O.; Lassauzay, C.; Abi Nader, S.; Feine, J.; de Albuquerque Junior, R.F. Testing the retention of attachments for implant overdentures—Validation of an original force measurement system. J. Oral Rehabil. 2010, 37, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Souza, R.F.; Jabbar, A.A.; Jafarpour, D.; Bedos, C.; Esfandiari, S.; Makhoul, N.M.; Dagdeviren, D.; Abi Nader, S.; Feine, J.S. Single-Implant Overdentures Retained by a Novel Attachment: A Mixed Methods Crossover Randomized Clinical Trial. JDR Clin. Trans. Res. 2022, 23800844221124083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pisani, M.; Bedos, C.; da Silva, C.H.L.; Fromentin, O.; de Albuquerque, R.F., Jr. A Qualitative Study on Patients’ Perceptions of Two Types of Attachments for Implant Overdentures. J. Oral Implantol. 2017, 43, 476–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Al-Ghafli, S.A.; Michalakis, K.X.; 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, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atashrazm, P.; Dashti, M.H.; Alavijeh, L.Z.; Azarmaeh, S.; Mahdizadeh, S. The influences of implant angulations in one and two directions on the retentive properties of overdenture attachments: An in vitro study. J. Indian Prosthodont. Soc. 2014, 14, 72–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Passia, N.; Ghazal, M.; Kern, M. Long-term retention behaviour of resin matrix attachment systems for overdentures. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2016, 57, 88–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yang, T.C.; Maeda, Y.; Gonda, T.; Kotecha, S. Attachment systems for implant overdenture: Influence of implant inclination on retentive and lateral forces. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2011, 22, 1315–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pigozzo, M.N.; Mesquita, M.F.; Henriques, G.E.; Vaz, L.G. The service life of implant-retained overdenture attachment systems. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2009, 102, 74–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Angle | Groups * | T1, Baseline | T2, 21 Cycles | T3, 93 Cycles | T4, 270 Cycles | T5, 543 Cycles | T6, 819 Cycles | T7, 1095 Cycles |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0° | A I | 36.0 (7.9) | 31.7 (5.4) | 32.1 (4.0) | 31.1 (5.3) | 28.3 (7.3) | 26.1 (8.2) | 22.3 (5.8) |
B II | 5.8 (0.4) | 5.0 (0.5) | 4.9 (0.4) | 4.6 (0.5) | 4.6 (0.3) | 4.6 (0.3) | 4.5 (0.4) | |
C III | 10.2 (0.8) | 9.5 (0.8) | 9.7 (1.1) | 10.3 (2.6) | 9.4 (1.6) | 8.6 (0.8) | 8.2 (0.9) | |
D III | 13.1 (1.0) | 12.7 (1.7) | 13.2 (2.4) | 13.1 (2.0) | 12.0 (1.3) | 12.3 (1.6) | 11.9 (1.2) | |
10° | A I | 35.3 (7.7) | 29.9 (8.0) | 22.9 (5.9) | 22.6 (5.9) | 22.3 (5.5) | 17.0 (5.6) | 15.9 (3.1) |
B II | 2.4 (1.1) | 2.3 (0.9) | 2.1 (0.8) | 2.7 (1.1) | 2.5 (1.2) | 3.0 (1.2) | 2.9 (1.3) | |
C III | 5.3 (1.6) | 4.9 (1.7) | 4.9 (1.5) | 5.4 (1.5) | 5.3 (1.5) | 5.7 (2.7) | 4.6 (2.1) | |
D III | 7.2 (2.9) | 6.4 (2.5) | 6.0 (2.4) | 6.3 (2.8) | 7.7 (3.1) | 7.3 (2.1) | 7.5 (2.0) | |
20° | A I | 19.7 (5.5) | 15.0 (4.2) | 16.3 (6.7) | 15.0 (5.4) | 11.1 (5.3) | 11.3 (3.5) | 7.4 (2.3) |
B II | 1.1 (0.2) | 1.1 (0.3) | 1.0 (0.4) | 1.1 (0.4) | 1.1 (0.4) | 1.1 (0.5) | 0.9 (0.3) | |
C II | 1.7 (0.3) | 1.9 (0.6) | 2.0 (0.8) | 2.0 (0.9) | 1.6 (0.6) | 2.0 (1.3) | 1.7 (0.8) | |
D II | 2.7 (1.0) | 2.5 (1.2) | 2.5 (1.0) | 2.0 (0.4) | 2.2 (0.9) | 2.6 (0.9) | 1.9 (0.4) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Fugariu, I.; de Souza, R.F.; Rosas, E.; Borie, E. Using an Attachment System with PEEK Matrices for Single-Implant Overdentures: In Vitro Retention Force. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 2159. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12062159
Fugariu I, de Souza RF, Rosas E, Borie E. Using an Attachment System with PEEK Matrices for Single-Implant Overdentures: In Vitro Retention Force. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(6):2159. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12062159
Chicago/Turabian StyleFugariu, Ioana, Raphael Freitas de Souza, Eduardo Rosas, and Eduardo Borie. 2023. "Using an Attachment System with PEEK Matrices for Single-Implant Overdentures: In Vitro Retention Force" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 6: 2159. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12062159