JIOH on LinkedIn JIOH on Facebook
  • Users Online: 43
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 12  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 420-426

A comparison of the retentive force of ball and socket attachment versus magnet attachment in mandibular overdentures: A randomized control trial


1 Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Beni-Suef, Beni-Suef, Egypt
2 Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ahram Candian, Cairo, Egypt
3 Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Cairo, Cairo, Egypt; Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Future University, Cairo, Egypt

Date of Submission20-Jan-2020
Date of Decision12-Apr-2020
Date of Acceptance13-Apr-2020
Date of Web Publication21-Oct-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Mohamed Y Sharaf
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Beni-Suef, Beni-Suef
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jioh.jioh_20_20

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Aim: To compare the retention and patient satisfaction of implant-supported mandibular overdentures with ball and socket attachment versus magnet attachment. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four participants (10 males and 14 females) were divided into two equal groups (n = 12). Both groups received implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained by ball and magnet attachment. Two implants were installed in the canine region bilaterally. Evaluation of retention was made at overdenture insertion, 3, 6, and 12 months. Patient satisfaction evaluation with Oral Health Impact Profile Questionnaire-14 (OHIP-14) was made at overdenture insertion 3, and 12 months subsequently. Results: The ball group showed a statistically significantly higher retention force (P < 0.05) than the magnet group at insertion, 3 and 6 months. The ball group had a statistically significantly lower mean of physical disability and physical pain (P < 0.05) than the magnet group through all follow-up. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to compare between groups as well as to study the changes by time within each group. Conclusion: Both implant-supported mandibular overdenture retained with magnet or ball and socket attachments consider a successful treatment option with superior improvement in the ball and socket group.

Keywords: Attachment, Overdenture, Patient Satisfaction, Quality of Life, Retention


How to cite this article:
Sharaf MY, Bakry E, Abdall MF. A comparison of the retentive force of ball and socket attachment versus magnet attachment in mandibular overdentures: A randomized control trial. J Int Oral Health 2020;12:420-6

How to cite this URL:
Sharaf MY, Bakry E, Abdall MF. A comparison of the retentive force of ball and socket attachment versus magnet attachment in mandibular overdentures: A randomized control trial. J Int Oral Health [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Nov 26];12:420-6. Available from: https://www.jioh.org/text.asp?2020/12/5/420/298790




  Introduction Top


Dental implants have completely changed the world of edentulism; despite the enormous efforts exerted, there are still many controversies regarding the retention of implant attachments, which will affect patient satisfaction and preference. There is insufficient evidence to determine the relative effectiveness of different attachment systems on prosthodontic success, maintenance, patient satisfaction, or patient preference.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5] Implant-retained overdentures offer a line of treatment that improve denture retention, patient’s satisfaction, and patient quality of life.[6],[7],[8] Implant-retained overdentures with different types of attachments represent approximately 60% of installed implants.[9],[10] Mandibular overdentures supported by two implants is a cost-effective, predictable line of treatment that improve retention, stability, and patient satisfaction, so it is considered as the standard treatment for the edentulous mandible.[11] Several types of attachments have been developed that are mainly classified into splinted anchorage systems, such as the bar type and unsplinted anchorage systems, as the unsplinted anchorage attachments have been used in many overdentures cases such as the ball and socket. The ball attachment requires less space within the prostheses, is easier to clean and more economical, as well as less technique sensitive. The ball attachment distributes and reduces the transmitted load to the implant by allowing slight multidirectional movement.[12],[13],[14],[15] However, magnets showed many advantages as low profile, minimal lateral stress transmission to the implants, minimal stress generated in the periimplant bone, and also not interfere with surrounding gingival tissues during overdenture dislodgement; magnets are less prominent, smoother, and comfortable to the patients when the prostheses are absent from the mouth.[16],[17],[18],[19],[20] The attachments used with implants mainly require frequent adjustment and repairs, as well as the attachment components liable to fracture, distortion, and disengagement with gradual loss of retention and stability. These problems are a common cause of patient dissatisfaction.[21],[22],[23] Thus, there are still many controversies regarding the retention of implant attachments that are used in implant-supported overdentures, where the success of an implant-retained overdentures primarily depends on the retentive capacity of attachment as well as better esthetics, which will be reflected toward the patient satisfaction and quality of life for long-term functionality.[3],[4],[5]

The purpose of this clinical trial was to compare the retention and patient satisfaction of implant-supported mandibular overdentures with ball and socket versus with magnet attachment. The research hypothesis was that the ball and socket would provide better retentive force as well as better patient satisfaction.


  Materials and Methods Top


Setting and design

Participants were enrolled from the outpatient clinic, Cairo University, Faculty of dentistry from March 2018 till May 2018 in a parallel randomized control trial for 1 year. The Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine Research Ethics Committee approved the protocol.

Sampling criteria

Based upon the results of Cune et al.,[24] the study will include a minimum of 12 subjects per group for a total of 24 subjects. Sample size calculation was performed using IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Sample Power Release.

The participants were enrolled according to the following criteria: completely edentulous, Angle’s class I maxillomandibular relationship, and all participants were free from neuromuscular disorders, temporomandibular joint disorders, and systemic diseases that could interfere with implant placement or implant osseointegration with age range from 50 to 70 years. Twenty-four selected participants were randomly divided by the team leader with a sealed envelope technique into two equal groups (n = 12) (seven females and five males in each group). The allocation concealment key was retained by the chairman of the department. The ball group received an implant-supported mandibular overdenture retained by ball attachment. The magnet group received an implant-supported mandibular overdenture retained by magnet attachment where all patients were blind regarding the type of final prosthesis. Fabrication of maxillary and mandibular complete denture as conventional manner with teeth arranged according to the lingualized occlusal concept,[5] then the dentures were evaluated intraorally for extension, retention, stability, esthetics, phonetics, occlusal plane orientation, centric occluding relation, and vertical dimension. Then the participants were instructed for denture and oral hygiene measures. The mandibular denture was duplicated into a radiographic stent using a mixture of acrylic resin and barium sulfate with a ratio of 4:1. The stent was then evaluated intraorally.[25] Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were made with the radiographic stent in place to determine the optimal place for implant placement, then the radiographic stent was converted into a surgical guide by making holes in the proposed implant site.

Surgical procedures

The surgical guide was disinfected by immersing it in a 2% glutaraldehyde solution for 15min. Infiltration anesthesia was given in the proposed implant site. The surgical guide was placed, and an explorer was used to mark the proposed sites for implant placement. A crestal incision was made using a Bard Parker blade no. 15, extending 5-mm mesial and distal to the marked implant site. A full-thickness mucoperiosteal flap was reflected using a sharp mucoperiosteal elevator. In some situations, with a sharp knife-edge ridge or irregular ridge, a low-speed fissure bur and bone file was used for smoothing the ridge and creating a bony plateau. Then, the surgical guide was again placed into the patient’s mouth, and a large round bur was used to mark the implant placement site under copious saline irrigation. The implant osteotomy (diameter 3.6 mm and length 12 mm) was made by sequential drilling. The same procedures were repeated for the other implant, and then parallelism was evaluated between both implants using a paralleling tool. The implant was installed in the osteotomy site and rotated gradually till flushing with the bone then the cover screw was placed. The flap was repositioned and sutured. After 3 months, digital periapical radiographs were carried out to ensure implant osseointegration. Infiltration anesthesia was given around the implant site. The surgical-guide was reinserted to determine the implant position, then the implant cover screw was exposed and replaced with suitable healing abutment according to mucoperiosteum thickness covering the implant [Figure 1]. The denture was modified to allow the patients to wear the denture, then the healing abutment was replaced by final abutment after the formation of a gingival collar [Figure 2] and [Figure 3]. Pickup of the metal housings and magnet assay was carried out using self-cure acrylic resin.
Figure 1: Placing healing abutment of suitable size

Click here to view
Figure 2: Ball abutment intraoral

Click here to view
Figure 3: Magnet abutment intraoral

Click here to view


Retention measurement (primary outcome)

There is no dropout; all patients completed the follow-up period. The retention was measured at the time of insertion 3, 6, and 12 months after prosthesis insertion for all participants. The procedure was started by identification of the geometric center of the mandibular arch to allow placement of the metallic loop. The digital force-meter machine was attached to the metallic loop to measure the retentive force of mandibular overdentures by applying a gradual pulling up force of the denture until it disengaged. The record appeared at the screen of the force meter (Extech 475040 digital force gauge), which is a single-blind measurement as the examiner knows the two different designs.

Questionnaire method (secondary outcome)

Patient satisfaction measured by Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) was used where the five responses for each item are as follows: never, hardly never, occasionally, fairly often, and very often. Items were scored on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (very often) [Table 1]. Lower scores represent a higher patient satisfaction and better quality of life. The questionnaires were recorded at baseline (2 weeks), 3 months, and 12 months after prosthesis insertion for patients of all groups. All questionnaires were taken by the same research interviewer (assisted interviewer) as he was blind about the type of prosthesis as he is from another department. All questionnaires were in English form and translated during the interview.
Table 1: Comparison between retention forces (G) in the two groups

Click here to view


Statistical analysis

Numerical data were explored for normality by checking the distribution of data and using tests of normality (Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests). All data showed normal (parametric) distribution. Data were presented as mean, standard deviation (SD), and 95% confidence interval for the mean (95% CI) values. Repeated measures one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to compare between the groups as well as to study the changes by time within each group. Bonferroni’s post hoc test was used for pairwise comparisons. The significance level was set at P < 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed with IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 23.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA).


  Results Top


The data were collected for all patients without dropout. There was a decrease of retention throughout the follow-up period in both groups; the ball and socket group showed statistically significantly (P < 0.05) better retention force compared to that of magnet group at 0, 3, 6 and 12 months [Table 1]. Within all groups, there was a decrease in mean retentive force, but within the ball and socket group, there was a statistically significant decrease in mean retentive force from baseline to 12 months [Table 1]. There was an increase of patient satisfaction throughout the follow-up period in both groups; the ball and socket group showed statistically significantly (P < 0.05) higher mean of overall satisfaction compared to that of magnet group along all follow-up period [Table 2].
Table 2: Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) scores within each group

Click here to view


Ball and socket group showed a statistically significantly lower median score than the magnet group along all follow-up periods regarding both physical disability and physical pain, whereas for other five aspects “Handicap, Social disability, Psychological disability, Psychological discomfort, and Functional limitation” no significant difference was found between both groups [Table 2].


  Discussion Top


The use of ball and socket is clinically promising, which supports the study hypothesis. The superior retention of ball attachment is matching with the research hypothesis. Some studies showed that there is no significant difference between the magnet and ball attachment,[26],[27] whereas others showed better results regarding the ball attachment.[24] However, the latest systematic reviews do not provide a definitive conclusion as there is insufficient evidence to determine the relative effectiveness of different attachment systems on patient satisfaction as well as patient satisfaction may be independent of the attachment system. It was not possible to determine any preferred attachment system for mandibular overdentures.[2],[28] Using implants in completely edentulous patients has proven for many times their success in providing the denture wearer satisfaction and confidence regarding implant-supported over-denture.[29],[30] As the study denotes a decrease of retention along with the follow-up period that coincides with many investigations, explaining loss of retentive force over time is inevitable. This loss of retention has been attributed to wear of attachment components, which may be related to deformation that occurs during insertion and removal of the prosthesis.[4],[17] With advancement and modification of magnet such as the development of encapsulated and rare earth magnets that allow its use with implant systems. These magnets showed greater retentive forces and reduced susceptibility to wear and corrosion, as well as a low maintenance requirement and high success rate.[31],[32] Retention of overdenture is crucial for clinical success as the attachments that provide more retention against displacement will give more acceptable results of better oral function and patient satisfaction.[33] The ball and socket group showed superior retentive force through all follow-up period,[34] which may be attributed to the nature of mechanical interlocking between male and female parts, whereas the magnets are deprived of mechanical retention as well as no lateral stability. The magnets group showed a minimal reduction in retentive force, which might be due to microscopic corrosion that might occur within the stainless steel but of low value due to recent technology of magnet production, and the ball showed more wear during insertion and removal.[7] The satisfaction score for ball and socket is superior regarding physical pain and physical disability, which may be attributed to the mild difficulty in eating or uncomfortable eating of some kind of sticky food as the magnet does not provide resistance to lateral forces. Several studies concluded that the ball yields stable implant outcome and improved Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL).[35] Data need to be confirmed by further randomized trials with a larger sample size as well as studying magnet attachment regarding other parameters.

Conclusion

Within the limitation of this comparative study, the following conclusions were made:

Both implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with magnet or ball and socket attachments consider a successful treatment option. The ball attachment provided more retention than the magnet attachment and led to improved patient satisfaction. This trial may form a base regarding the selection of best attachment regarding improving quality of life as well as the patients’ satisfaction.

Data availability statement

The data set used in this study is available on request.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.



 
  References Top

1.
Stafford GL The effectiveness of different attachment systems maxillary and mandibular implant overdentures. Evid Based Dent 2019;20:26-7.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Payne AG, Alsabeeha NH, Atieh MA, Esposito M, Ma S, Anas El-Wegoud M Interventions for replacing missing teeth: Attachment systems for implant overdentures in edentulous jaws. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;10:CD008001.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Aroso C, Silva AS, Ustrell R, Mendes JM, Braga AC, Berastegui E, et al. Effect of abutment angulation in the retention and durability of three overdenture attachment systems: An in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont 2016;8:21-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
de Souza FI, de Souza Costa A, Dos Santos Pereira R, Dos Santos PH, de Brito RB Jr, Rocha EP Assessment of satisfaction level of edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant-supported prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016;31:884-90.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Engelmeier RL, Phoenix RD The development of lingualized occlusion. J Prosthodont 2019;28:118-31.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Elkerdawy MW, Radi IA Effect of dislodging forces on mandibular implant attachment-retained overdenture. Implant Dent 2011;20:246-54.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Büttel AE, Lüthy H, Sendi P, Marinello CP Wear of ceramic and titanium ball attachments in subjects with an implant-retained overdenture: A controlled clinical trial. J Prosthet Dent 2012;107:109-13.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Ortensi L, Martinolli M, Borromeo C, Ceruso F, Gargari M, Xhanari E, et al. Effectiveness of ball attachment systems in implant retained- and supported-overdentures: A three- to five-year retrospective examination. Dent J 2019;7:84.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Nissan J, Oz-Ari B, Gross O, Ghelfan O, Chaushu G Long-term prosthetic aftercare of direct vs. Indirect attachment incorporation techniques to mandibular implant-supported overdenture. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:627-30.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Yaseen A, Mohammed F, Kaddah A Comparison of two attachments retaining mandibular immediately loaded two implant overdentures. Cairo Dent J 2012;28:1-7.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
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. Gerodontology 2002;19:3-4.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
El-Anwar M, El-Taftazany E, Hamed H, Abd ElHay M Influence of number of implants and attachment type on stress distribution in mandibular implant-retained overdentures: Finite element analysis. Open Access Maced J Med Sci2017;5:244-9.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Yang TC, 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: 1315-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
El-Charkawi G Connecting Implants to Natural Teeth. Problems and Solutions. Implants and Future. 1st International Implantology Conference. 1995 Mar;91.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Gracis SE, Nicholls JI, Chalupink JT Shock-absorbing behaviour of five restorative materials used on implant occlusal surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:361-3.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Chung KH, Chung CY, Cagna DR, Cronin RJ Jr. Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont 2004;13:221-6.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Takeshita S, Kanazawa M, Minakuchi S Stress analysis of mandibular two-implant overdenture with different attachment systems. Dent Mater J 2011;30:928-34.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Elsyad MA, Mahanna FF, Elshahat MA, Elshoukouki AH Locators versus magnetic attachment effect on peri-implant tissue health of immediate loaded two implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: A 1-year randomised trial. J Oral Rehabil 2016;43:297-305.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Gosavi SS, Ghanchi M, Malik SA, Sanyal P A survey of complete denture patients experiencing difficulties with their prostheses. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14:524-7.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Fujimoto T, Niimi A, Murakami I, Ueda M Use of new magnetic attachments for implant-supported overdentures. J Oral Implantol 1998;24:147-51.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Mardan N, Preoteasa C, Maria T, Elena P Self-reported denture satisfaction in completely edentulous patients. Rom J Oral Rehabil 2013;5:88-95.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
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;93:28-37.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Rutkunas V, Mizutani H, Takahashi H Influence of attachment wear on retention of mandibular overdenture. J Oral Rehabil 2007;34:41-51.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Cune M, van Kampen F, van der Bilt A, Bosman F Patient satisfaction and preference with magnet, bar-clip, and ball-socket retained mandibular implant overdentures: A cross-over clinical trial. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:471.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Gupta H, Aneja S, Singh MP, Kaur H, Sengar RS, Gupta P Implant retained overdenture: Two-way approach (case study). J Int Oral Health 2016;8:518-22.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Michelinakis G, Barclay CW, Smith PW The influence of interimplant distance and attachment type on the retention characteristics of mandibular overdentures on 2 implants: Initial retention values. Int J Prosthodont 2006;19:507-12.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Ismail HA, Mahrous AI, Banasr FH, Soliman TA, Baraka Y Two years retrospective evaluation of overdenture retained by symphyseal single implant using two types of attachments. J Int Oral Health 2015;7:4-8.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Kim HY, Lee JY, Shin SW, Bryant SR Attachment systems for mandibular implant overdentures: A systematic review. J Adv Prosthodont 2012;4:197-203.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Pan Y-H, Lin T-M, Liang C-H Comparison of patient′s satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures and complete dentures. Biomed J2014;37:156-62.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Carlsson GE, Omar R The future of complete dentures in oral rehabilitation. A critical review. J Oral Rehabil 2010;37:143-56.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Ellis JS, Burawi G, Walls A, Thomason JM Patient satisfaction with two designs of implant supported removable overdentures; ball attachment and magnets. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:1293-8.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Cristache CM, Muntianu LA, Burlibasa M, Didilescu AC Five-year clinical trial using three attachment systems for implant overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:e171-8.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Trakas T, Michalakis K, Kang K, Hirayama H Attachment systems for implant retained overdentures: A literature review. Implant Dent 2006;15:24-34.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Slade G Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 1997;25:284-90.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Matthys C, Vervaeke S, Besseler J, Doornewaard R, Dierens M, De Bruyn H Fiveyears follow-up of mandibular 2-implant overdentures on locator or ball abutments: Implant results, patient-related outcome, and prosthetic aftercare. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21:835-44.  Back to cited text no. 35
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed313    
    Printed8    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded18    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]