Bar Locator Versus Bar Clip Attachment for Implant Assisted Mandibular OverdentureShady M, Emera R, Hegazy SA* and Kenawy M
Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Egypt
- *Corresponding Author:
- Salah AbdelFatah Hegazy
Assistant Professor of removable Prosthodontics
Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University
Gomhorea Street, Mansoura, Dakahlia 050, Egypt
E-mail: [email protected]
Received date: May 19, 2014; Accepted date: August 27, 2014; Published date: August 29, 2014
Citation: Shady M, Emera R, Hegazy SA, Kenawy M (2014) Bar Locator Versus Bar Clip Attachment for Implant Assisted Mandibular Overdenture. Dentistry S2:006. doi: 10.4172/2161-1122.S2-006
Copyright: © 2014 Shady M, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Objectives: To compare Bar-locator attachment versus Bar-clip attachment for retaining two implants assisted complete mandibular overdenture regarding masticatory efficiency and retention.
Materials and methods: Sixteen healthy completely edentulous male patients were selected for this study. Each patient received two inter-foraminal implants in the canine areas of the mandible using standardized two-stage surgical technique. Implants left unloaded for three months. The patients were randomly classified according to type of bar attachment into two equal groups, Group (I) using Bar-locator attachment) and Group (II) using Bar-clip attachment. Masticatory efficiency and retention were evaluated using unmixed two colored chewing gums and digital force meter respectively. Evaluations were performed at time of insertion (T0), 3 months (T3) and 6 months (T6) after insertion.
Results: Regarding masticatory efficiency, both groups showed decrease in number of unmixed fraction as number of chewing strokes increased. In Group I, number of unmixed fraction significantly decreased with advance time, while in group II, the number of unmixed fraction significantly increased with advance time. Group I showed significant increase in number of unmixed fraction in most of chewing strokes at T0 and significant decrease in number of unmixed fraction at T3, T6 than in Group II. Regarding retention (measured in Newton N),it decreased significantly with advance of time, Group I (Bar-locator attachment) showed a statistically significant increased retention values (R) compared to Group II at different observation times.
Conclusion: Both types of bar attachment provided sufficient values in terms of retention and masticatory efficiency. However, bar-locator retained overdenture is considered a promising prosthesis regarding retention and long term masticatory efficiency.