Retention and patient satisfaction with bar-clip, ball and socket and kerator attachments in mandibular implant overdenture treatment: An in vivo study

被引:13
|
作者
Varshney, Nitish [1 ]
Aggarwal, Sumit [1 ]
Kumar, Shalabh [1 ]
Singh, S. P. [1 ]
机构
[1] ITS CDSR, Dept Prosthodont & Crown & Bridge, Room 4, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
来源
关键词
Ball attachment; bar attachment; implant supported overdenture; Kerator attachment; patient satisfaction; retention value; LOCATOR ATTACHMENTS; MAINTENANCE;
D O I
10.4103/jips.jips_281_18
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Aim: The aim of this in vivo study was to evaluate and compare the retention and patient satisfaction in implant supported mandibular overdenture with three different attachment system. Materials and Methods: After evaluation of prosthetic space, fifteen edentulous subjects received two implants in the inter-foramina region of the mandible and were divided into 3 groups with 5 subjects each, delayed loading protocol was followed in all the patients. The retention force and satisfaction level with the attachments at baseline and after 6 months was measured in a standardised way using retentive device and VAS questionnaire. The study was based on evaluation of retention and patient satisfaction. 15 subjects were included in the study. The results obtained were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA test, and multiple comparisons were carried out using the Bonferroni tests. Results: At the end of six months, the retention force and satisfaction level was higher in Group 3 (Kerator attachment) as compared to Group 1 (ball and socket attachment) and Group 2 (bar and clip attachment) and patient satisfaction was equal in groups 1, 2 and 3 but the total number of interventions is significantly higher in the attachment bar. Analysis of variance with repeated measures showed significant differences in retention force among the three attachment types. Conclusion: (1) Group 3 (kerator attachment) exhibit higher retentive capacities than Group 1 (ball and socket attachment) and Group 2 (bar and clip attachment). (2) patient satisfaction was higher in Group 3 (Kerator attachment) in compare to Group 1 (ball and socket attachment) and Group 2 (bar and clip attachment).
引用
收藏
页码:49 / 57
页数:9
相关论文
共 31 条
  • [1] Hard and soft-tissue evaluation of bar-clip, ball-socket, and kerator attachments in mandibular implant overdenture treatment: An in vivo study
    Varshney, Nitish
    Gupta, Sakshi
    Aggarwal, Sun
    Kumar, Shalabh
    Sadish, M.
    Khan, Mohsin
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INDIAN PROSTHODONTIC SOCIETY, 2019, 19 (04): : 296 - 306
  • [2] 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
    van Kampen, F
    Cune, M
    van der Bilt, A
    Bosman, F
    [J]. CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2003, 14 (06) : 720 - 726
  • [3] Retention of bar clip attachment for mandibular implant overdenture
    Nassar, Hossam, I
    Abdelaziz, Medhat Sameh
    [J]. BMC ORAL HEALTH, 2022, 22 (01)
  • [4] Retention of bar clip attachment for mandibular implant overdenture
    Hossam I. Nassar
    Medhat Sameh Abdelaziz
    [J]. BMC Oral Health, 22
  • [5] Patient satisfaction and preference with magnet, bar-clip, and ball-socket retained mandibular implant overdentures: A cross-over clinical trial
    Cune, M
    van Kampen, P
    van der Bilt, A
    Bosman, F
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, 2005, 18 (02) : 99 - 105
  • [6] Retention and wear of implant-supported ball and socket overdenture attachments.
    Munshi, IE
    Essop, ARM
    Slabbert, JCG
    Chandler, HD
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1997, 76 (05) : 1204 - 1204
  • [7] Mandibular Implant-Supported Overdenture: An In Vitro Comparison of Ball, Bar, and Magnetic Attachments
    Manju, V.
    Sreelal, T.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY, 2013, 39 (03) : 302 - 307
  • [8] Mandibular Overdentures Retained by Two Implants: 10-Year Results from a Crossover Clinical Trial Comparing Ball-Socket and Bar-Clip Attachments
    Cune, Marco
    Burgers, Mark
    van Kampen, Frits
    de Putter, Cornelis
    van der Bilt, Andries
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, 2010, 23 (04) : 310 - 317
  • [9] In vitro study of a mandibular implant overdenture retained with ball, magnet, or bar attachments: Comparison of load transfer and denture stability
    Tokuhisa, M
    Matsushita, Y
    Koyano, K
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, 2003, 16 (02) : 128 - 134
  • [10] Patient satisfaction and masticatory performance of zirconia bar compared to cobalt chromium bar retaining mandibular implant overdenture: A crossover study
    Altonbary, Gilan Y.
    Emera, Radwa M. K.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, 2021, 48 (07) : 827 - 835