• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.12-21
• /
• 2022

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to investigate changes in retention and wear pattern of Locator^® and ADD-TOC attachments on a digital milled bar by performing chewing simulation and repeated insertion/removal of prostheses in fully edentulous models. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Locator (Locator^®; Zest Anchors Inc., Escondido, CA, USA) was selected as the control group and ADD-TOC (ADD-TOC; PNUAdd Co., Ltd., Busan, Republic of Korea) as the experimental group. A CAD-CAM milled bar was mounted on a master model and 3 threaded holes for connecting a bar attachment was formed using a tap. Locator and ADD-TOC attachments were then attached to the milled bar. Simulated mastication and repeated insertion/removal were performed over 400,000 cyclic loadings and 1,080 insertions/removals, respectively. Wear patterns on deformed attachment were investigated by field emission scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS. For the ADD-TOC attachments, chewing simulation and repeated insertion/removal resulted in a mean initial retentive force of 24.43 ± 4.89 N, which were significantly lower than that of the Locator attachment, 34.33 ± 8.25 N (P < .05). Amounts of retention loss relative to baseline for the Locator and ADD-TOC attachments were 21.74 ± 7.07 and 8.98 ± 5.76 N (P < .05). CONCLUSION. CAD-CAM milled bar with the ADD-TOC attachment had a lower initial retentive force than the Locator attachment. However, the ADD-TOC attachment might be suitable for long-term use as it showed less deformation and had a higher retentive force after simulated mastication and insertion/removal repetitions.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.7 no.4
• /
• pp.338-342
• /
• 2015

PURPOSE. This retrospective study evaluated the outcome of implant-retained overdentures (IODs) after 5-19 years of clinical function. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A retrospective analysis of patient files was performed referring to 27 patients who received 36 IODs with 3 different bar designs (group A=prefabricated round bars, n=7; group B=one-piece anterior milled bars, n=20; and group C=two bilaterally placed milled bars, n=9) in the mandible (n=24) and/or in the maxilla (n=12). The analysis focused on the survival and success rates (according to Kaplan-Meier) of the implants and prostheses. Technical complication rates for each type of restoration were analyzed and compared via one-way ANOVA and the Chi-squared test. The prevalence of peri-implantitis (radiographic bone loss ${\geq}3.5mm$) was evaluated by digital analysis of panoramic radiographs taken postoperative (baseline) and after 5-19 years of clinical function (follow-up). RESULTS. The mean observational time was 7.3 years. The survival rates of the prostheses and implants were 100% and 97.7%, respectively. Technical complications occurred more frequently in group A (mean: 3.5 during observational time) than in the other two groups (B: 0.8; C: 1.0). However, this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.58). Peri-implantitis was diagnosed for 12.4% of the implants in 37% of the patients. CONCLUSION. Bar-retained IODs are an adequate treatment option for edentulous jaws. These restorations may exhibit high implant/prosthesis survival rates (>97%), and a limited incidence of technical complications after a mean observational period of >7 years. Nevertheless, peri-implantitis was identified as a frequent and serious biological complication for this type of reconstruction.