Locator® versus ceramic/electroplated double-crown attachments: a prospective study on the intraindividual comparison of implant-supported mandibular prostheses
- 148 Downloads
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.
After completing both test phases, seven patients opted for the Locator prosthesis and five patients opted for the double-crown prosthesis.
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.
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.
KeywordsLocator attachment Double-crown attachment Ceramic/electroplated double crowns Edentulous patient Overdenture Coverdenture Dental implants
We would like to thank Dentsply Implants (Mannheim, Germany) for supporting this clinical study.
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.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 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
- 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.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.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
- 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.Sadig W (2009) A comparative in vitro study on the retention and stability of implant-supported overdentures. Quintessence Int 40:313–319Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 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]
- 33.Dentsply Implants (2012) Locator™: Die vielseitige, selbstausrichtende Deckprothese — Version 6. http://www.dentsplyimplants.de/~/media/M3%20Media/DENTSPLY%20IMPLANTS/1210900%20Locator%20%20die%20vielseitige%20selbstausrichtende%20DeckprotheseDENTSPLY%20Implants%20Version.ashx?filetype=.pdf. Accessed 14 June 2017