Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 763–770 | Cite as

Locator® versus ceramic/electroplated double-crown attachments: a prospective study on the intraindividual comparison of implant-supported mandibular prostheses

  • Silvia BrandtEmail author
  • Jan Brandt
  • Ali-Reza Ketabi
  • Hans-Christoph Lauer
  • Anna Kunzmann
Original Article
  • 148 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

Implant-supported overdentures are an established dental treatment mode. The aim of this prospective study was and interindividual comparison of patient satisfaction with restorations retained by a prefabricated and thus inexpensive attachment system (Locator®) or with a technologically complex and thus expensive attachment system (ceramic/electroplated double crowns) with similar retentive performance.

Materials and methods

Twelve patients received a Locator and a double-crown prosthesis in a crossover study for test periods of 3 months each. The main target parameter was the patient’s final decision in favor of one of the two prosthesis types.

Results

After completing both test phases, seven patients opted for the Locator prosthesis and five patients opted for the double-crown prosthesis.

Conclusion

Given the predominant lack of statistically significant differences, the two types of prostheses can be described as equivalent. A recommendation in favor of the Locator prosthesis can be motivated by its lower cost.

Clinical relevance

The results of the study show that the more cost-effective variant was comparable to the more expensive double-crown prosthesis under the conditions prevailing in the study. Depending on the indication, this may influence the decision-making process in daily clinical practice and support the clinician’s patient information and consultation efforts.

Keywords

Locator attachment Double-crown attachment Ceramic/electroplated double crowns Edentulous patient Overdenture Coverdenture Dental implants 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dentsply Implants (Mannheim, Germany) for supporting this clinical study.

Funding

The work was supported by Dentsply Implants (Mannheim, Germany).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Ethical approval

As the examinations were conducted with human participants, an approval was commissioned and issued by the Ethics Commission of the Medical Department at the Goethe University of Frankfurt with transaction number 117/11 before the beginning of the study. All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Martin-Ares M, Barona-Dorado C, Guisado-Moya B, Martinez-Rodriguez N, Cortes-Breton-Brinkmann J, Martinez-Gonzalez JM (2015) Prosthetic hygiene and functional efficacy in completely edentulous patients: satisfaction and quality of life during a 5-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res 27:1500–1505.  https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12604 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    John MT, LeResche L, Koepsell TD, Hujoel P, Miglioretti DL, Micheelis W (2003) Oral health-related quality of life in Germany. Eur J Oral Sci 111:483–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maló P, de Araújo Nobre M, Lopes A, Ferro A, Gravito I (2015) All-on-4® treatment concept for the rehabilitation of the completely edentulous mandible: a 7-year clinical and 5-year radiographic retrospective case series with risk assessment for implant failure and marginal bone level. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 17 (Suppl):e531–e541. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12282
  4. 4.
    Krennmair G, Suto D, Seemann R, Piehslinger E (2012) Removable four implant-supported mandibular overdentures rigidly retained with telescopic crowns or milled bars: a 3-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:481–488.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02169.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wolfart S, Braasch K, Brunzel S, Kern M (2008) The central single implant in the edentulous mandible: improvement of function and quality of life. A report of 2 cases. Quintessence Int 39:541–548Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jokstad A (2006) Implant retained or conventional dentures, which give more patients satisfaction? Evid Based Dent 7:96–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cepa S, Koller B, Spies BC, Stampf S, Kohal RJ (2017) Implant-retained prostheses: ball vs. conus attachments—a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 28:177–185.  https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12779 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heckmann SM, Schrott A, Graef F, Wichmann MG, Weber HP (2004) Mandibular two-implant telescopic overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 15:560–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kleis WK, Kämmerer PW, Hartmann S, Al-Nawas B, Wagner W (2010) A comparison of three different attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: one-year report. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 12:209–218.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00154.x Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rinke S, Rasing H, Gersdorff N, Buergers R, Roediger M (2015) Implant-supported overdentures with different bar designs: a retrospective evaluation after 5–19 years of clinical function. J Adv Prosthodont 7:338–343.  https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2015.7.4.338 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sato D, Kanazawa M, Kim YK, Yokoyama S, Omura Y, Ozeki M, Minakuchi S, Kasugai S, Baba K (2016) Immediate loading of two freestanding implants placed by computer-guided flapless surgery supporting a mandibular overdenture with magnetic attachments. J Prosthodont Res 60:54–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2015.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sadig W (2009) A comparative in vitro study on the retention and stability of implant-supported overdentures. Quintessence Int 40:313–319Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eitner S, Schlegel A, Emeka N, Holst S, Will J, Hamel J (2008) Comparing bar and double-crown attachments in implant-retained prosthetic reconstruction: a follow-up investigation. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:530–537.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01500.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bayer S, Stark H, Gölz L, Keilig L, Kraus D, Hansen A, Enkling N (2012) Clinical retention force development of double crowns. Clin Oral Investig 16:407–411.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0530-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reda KM, El-Torky IR, El-Gendy MN (2016) In vitro retention force measurement for three different attachment systems for implant-retained overdenture. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 16:380–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lauritano F, Runci M, Cervino G, Fiorillo L, Bramanti E, Cicciù M (2016) Three-dimensional evaluation of different prosthesis retention systems using finite element analysis and the Von Mises stress test. Minerva Stomatol 65:353–367Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cicciù M, Cervino G, Bramanti E, 2, Lauritano F, Lo Gudice G, Scappaticci L, Rapparini A, Guglielmino E, Risitano G (2015) FEM analysis of mandibular prosthetic overdenture supported by dental implants: evaluation of different retention methods. Comput Math Methods Med 2015:943839. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/943839, 2016
  18. 18.
    Bayer S, Stark H, Mues S, Keilig L, Schrader A, Enkling N (2010) Retention force measurement of telescopic crowns. Clin Oral Investig 14:607–611.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0315-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gurbulak AG, Kiliç K, Eroğlu Z, Gercekcioğlu E, Kesim B (2013) Evaluation of the retention force of double conical crowns used in combination with a galvanoforming and casting fabrication technique. J Prosthodont 22:63–68.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2012.00897.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stancić I, Jelenković A (2008) Retention of telescopic denture in elderly patients with maximum partially edentulous arch. Gerodontology 25:162–167.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-2358.2007.00204.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zou D, Wu Y, Huang W, Wang F, Wang S, Zhang Z, Zhang Z (2013) A 3-year prospective clinical study of telescopic crown, bar, and locator attachments for removable four implant-supported maxillary overdentures. Int J Prosthodont 26:566–573.  https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.3485 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weigl P, Hahn L, Lauer HC (2000) Advanced biomaterials used for a new telescopic retainer for removable dentures. J Biomed Mater Res 53:320–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weigl P, Lauer HC (2000) Advanced biomaterials used for a new telescopic retainer for removable dentures. J Biomed Mater Res 53:337–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Heydecke G, Boudrias P, Awad MA, De Albuquerque RF, Lund JP, Feine JS (2003) Within-subject comparisons of maxillary fixed and removable implant prostheses: patient satisfaction and choice of prosthesis. Clin Oral Implants Res 14:125–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shastry T, Anupama NM, Shetty S, Nalinakshamma M (2016) An in vitro comparative study to evaluate the retention of different attachment systems used in implant-retained overdentures. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 16:159–166.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4052.176520 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Evtimovska E, Masri R, Driscoll CF, Romberg E (2009) The change in retentive values of Locator attachments and Hader clips over time. J Prosthodont 18:479–483.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00474.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tokar E, Uludag B, Karacaer O (2017) Load transfer characteristics of three-implant-retained overdentures with different interimplant distances. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 32:363–371.  https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.5291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bilhan H, Geckili O, Mumcu E, Bilmenoglu C (2011) Maintenance requirements associated with mandibular implant overdentures: clinical results after first year of service. J Oral Implantol 37:697–704.  https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00096 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sônego MV, Goiato MC, Dos Santos DM (2016) Electromyography evaluation of masseter and temporalis, bite force, and quality of life in elderly patients during the adaptation of mandibular implant-supported overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12980 [Epub ahead of print 2016 Sep 11]
  30. 30.
    Verma R, Joda T, Brägger U, Wittneben JG (2013) A systematic review of the clinical performance of tooth-retained and implant-retained double crown prostheses with a follow-up of ≥ 3 years. J Prosthodont 22:2–12.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2012.00905.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Daou EE (2015) Biomaterial aspects: a key factor in the longevity of implant overdenture attachment systems. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 5:255–262.  https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0762.161752 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lahori M, Kaul AS, Chandra S, Nagrath R, Gupta H (2013) Comparative evaluation of bone in mandibular implant retained overdentures using delayed and immediate loading protocol: an in-vivo study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 13:113–121.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-012-0240-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Silvia Brandt
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jan Brandt
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ali-Reza Ketabi
    • 3
  • Hans-Christoph Lauer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anna Kunzmann
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Prosthodontics, Hospital for Dental, Oral and Orthodontic Medicine (Carolinum)Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt am MainFrankfurtGermany
  2. 2.Poliklinik für Zahnärztliche Prothetik, ZZMK CarolinumJohann Wolfgang Goethe – Universität Frankfurt am MainFrankfurtGermany
  3. 3.StuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations