Retention of Different Attachment Systems for Digitally Designed Mandibular Implant Overdenture.

PURPOSE: Primary retention and gradual loss of retention of different attachment systems are important key factors in proper attachment selection; however, studies on attachment retention show a wide range of retention values concerning the same attachment system. This in vitro study uses a novel approach that utilizes a digitally designed and 3D-printed reinforced overdenture, which has a digitally determined geometric center, in order to standardize results for future research and clinical work. This study aims to evaluate initial retention along with the gradual loss of retention at different time intervals between three types of stud attachments, retaining a digitally designed, reinforced mandibular overdenture after 5475 cycles simulating 5 years of attachment usage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An epoxy model of an ACP Class I (American College of Prosthodontists) edentulous mandible was constructed. A fully computer-designed surgical guide was employed after virtual denture design to place two implants according to prosthetically driven implant placement protocol. A metal meshwork with tissue stops was designed digitally to reinforce the denture and to carry the geometric center. The meshwork was incorporated into the denture-intaglio surface, which was planned for attachment pickup. Forty-eight digitally designed and metal-reinforced 3D-printed dentures were divided into four groups (12 dentures for each group). Loss of retention was measured to compare two novel Locator attachments (12 pairs of Locator R-TX, 12 pairs of Locator F-TX medium and low retention, with 12 pairs of ball and socket). Each group was subjected to an insertion and removal fatigue test resembling 5 years of patient usage. Retention values were recorded using a universal testing machine. RESULTS: Locator F-TX medium and low retention showed loss of retention by 91.93% and 92.91%, after fatigue testing equivalent to 2 and 3 years of use, respectively. Ball and socket and Locator R-TX showed loss of retention by 19.87% and 26.31%, respectively, after fatigue testing equivalent to 5 years of use. CONCLUSIONS: Locator R-TX attachment systems showed promising retention for implant overdentures compared to ball and socket attachments. The proposed digital technique of denture reinforcement is capable of standardizing results for research and clinical work.

Digital assessment of the accuracy of implant impression techniques in free end saddle partially edentulous patients. A controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This in vivo study aims to assess the accuracy of the digital intraoral implant impression technique, the conventional closed-tray impression technique, and open-tray impression techniques in a standardized method of data segmentation along with the best-fit algorithm to overcome the inconsistency of results of previous studies regarding implant impression techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen implants were placed in eight patients. Each patient has undergone four impression techniques: direct intraoral scanning of the stock abutment, intraoral scanning using a scan body, conventional closed tray impression technique, and the conventional open tray impression technique. The conventional impressions were poured into stone casts with analogues and stock abutments and scanned using a desktop scanner. In intraoral scanning of the scan body, computer-aided design software was used for the replacement of the scan body with a custom-made abutment that is identical to the stock abutment, allowing comparison with the other impression techniques. The deviation in implant position between the groups was measured using special 3D inspection and metrology software. Statistical comparisons were carried out between the studied groups using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. RESULTS: The total deviation between groups was compared to the reference group represented by the intraoral scanning of the abutment. The total deviation was statistically significantly different (P = 0.000) among the different studied groups. The mean deviation was recorded as 21.45 ± 3.3 µm, 40.04 ± 4.1 µm, and 47.79 ± 4.6 µm for the intraoral scanning of the scan body, the conventional closed, and open tray, respectively. CONCLUSION: For implant impressions in partially edentulous patients, intraoral oral scanning using a scan body significantly improves scanning and overall accuracy. Regarding conventional impressions, the closed-tray impression techniques showed more accuracy than conventional open-tray impressions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Intraoral digital implant impression using scan body offers more accuracy than conventional implant impression techniques for recording posterior implant position in free-end saddle partially edentulous patients.