Purpose: For a long time, the use of magnets for the anchorage of dental prostheses failed due to lack of biocompatibility and the magnets' high susceptibility to corrosion in the mouth. These facts make encapsulation of the magnetic alloy with a corrosion-resistant, tight, and functionally firm sealing necessary. Due to different products and analysis methods, it is not feasible to compare the findings for contemporary products with the sparse and rather old test results in the literature. Therefore, the aim of this study was the standardized control and the comparison of the corrosion behavior of modern magnetic attachments for use on teeth and dental implants. Materials and Methods: Thirty-seven components of magnetic attachments on implants and natural teeth from different alloys (NdFeB, SmCo, Ti, CrMoMnTiFe, etc.) as delivered by the manufacturers or fabricated according to their instructions were examined for their corrosion behavior using the statical immersion analysis (ISO 10271:2001). Four specimens of every product with the same design were used. An uncased SmCo magnet served as control. Analyses after 1, 4, 7, and 28 days of the storage in corrosion solution were made. The eluate was examined quantitatively on the alloy components of the respective component with the help of optical emission spectrometry (mu g/cm(2)). The results were compared to the requirements of ISO standard 22674:2006. In addition, existing corrosion products were also defined in the solution after 28 days. The results were analyzed descriptively and statistically to determine possible significant differences (t-test and Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon rank-sums test; p < 0.05). Results: Dissolved metal ions could be found on all tested products. The release after 1 and 4 days was different for all specimens. In the group of implant abutments, the highest ion release after 7 days was found (all measurements mu g/cm(2)): Fe (13.94, Magfit-IP-IDN dome type), Pd (1.53, Medical-anchor), Cr (1.32, Magfit-IP-IDN dome type), Ti (1.09, Magfit-IP-IDN abutment), Co (0.81, Medical-anchor), and B (0.6, Magfit-IP-IDN dome type). After 28 days, the analyzed ion release increased irregularly: Fe (173.58, Magfit-IP-IDN dome type), Pd (44.17, Medical-anchor), Cr (2.02, Magfit-IP-IDN dome type), Ti (2.11, Magfit-IP-IDN abutment), Co (26.13, Medical-anchor), B (1.77, Magfit-IP-IDN dome type), and Nd (79.18, Magfit-IP-IDN dome type). In the group of magnetic systems on natural teeth, the highest ion release after 7 days was found for Fe (4.81, Magfit DX 800 keeper), Cr (1.18, Magfit DX 800 keeper), Pd (0.21, Direct System Keeper), Ni (0.18, WR-Magnet S3 small), Co (0.12, Direct System Keeper), and Ti (0.09, Magna Cap - Mini). After 28 days, the analyzed ion release increased non-uniformly: Fe (31.92, Magfit DX 800 Keeper), Cr (6.65, Magfit DX 800 Keeper), Pd (18.19, Direct System Keeper), Ni (0.61, WR-Magnet S3 small), Co (10.94, Direct System Keeper), Ti (0.83, Magna Cap - Mini), and Pd (2.78, EFM Alloy). In contrast, the uncased control magnet showed an exponential release after 7 days of Sm ions (55.06) and Co-ions (86.83), after 28 days of Sm ions (603.91) and Co ions (950.56). The release of corrosion products of all tested products stayed significantly under the limit of 200 mu g/cm(2) (ISO 22674:2006). In contrast, the non-encapsulated control magnet exceeded that limit significantly. Conclusion: The analysis of the corrosion behavior of modern magnetic attachments for use on teeth and dental implants according to ISO 10271:2001 showed that metal ions had dissolved on all specimens. In the case of one product, the magnet corroded. For this product, an improvement of the capsulation would be desirable. None of the products reached the limit specified in ISO 22674:2006. All products seem to be suitable for dental application. Further studies in regard to the specific biocompatibility and possible cytotoxic effects on mucosa and tissue would be desirable.
