With over one hundred clinical studies and more than 4.2 million attachments sold, the LOCATOR is the most reviewed, researched and tested product in the market. Discover what makes the LOCATOR the gold standard in overdenture attachment systems.
Amato F., Polara G.
The use of narrow-diameter dental implants to support mandibular overdentures: A prospective clinical study
JIRD, Vol. 6, 2015
Guidelines for implant overdenture treatment with standard or narrow diameter implants: A clinical rationale
JIRD, CE-2, 2015
Türk PE, Geckili O, Türk Y, Günay V, Bilgin T.
In vitro comparison of the retentive properties of ball and locator attachments for implant overdentures.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Sep-Oct;29(5):1106-13. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3621.
To compare the retentive properties of ball and locator attachments during 5,000 insertion-separation cycles, corresponding to approximately 4.5 years of clinical use.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Four dental implants (diameter, 3.8 mm; length, 12 mm) were inserted into the prepared beds of two polyethylene blocks. Twenty acrylic prosthetic components were fabricated and connected to the ball and locator abutments. Tensile force was applied to the prosthetic components until the attachments were separated from the abutments. All samples were subjected to 5,000 insertion-separation cycles. Retention forces were measured after 10, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 1,000, 1,500, 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, and 5,000 insertion-separation cycles. Additionally, the wear of the attachments was measured using scanning electron microscopy. Data were analyzed to determine statistical equivalence among the two different attachments using the Student t test procedure and the Mann-Whitney U test procedure (α = .05).
Ball attachments showed significant retention loss after 100, 200, 400, 500, 1,500, and 4,000 cycles, and the locator attachments showed significant retention loss after 100, 200, 300, 500, and 3,000 cycles as compared with the previous cycle (P < .05). Retention loss after 5,000 cycles was detected significantly more often for ball attachments than for locator attachments (P = .049). No significant difference was detected between the retention losses of the two attachment systems during the other cycles as compared with the initial retention values (P > .05). No significant difference was detected between the wear on the two attachment systems after 5,000 cycles (P > .05).
Both attachment systems showed decreased retentive forces after 5,000 insertion-separation cycles. However, after 5,000 insertion-separation cycles, locator attachments showed better retentive properties than ball attachments.
Uludag B, Polat S, Sahin V, Çomut AA.
Effects of implant angulations and attachment configurations on the retentive forces of locator attachment-retained overdentures.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Sep-Oct;29(5):1053-7. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3401.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of different implant angulations and attachment configurations on the retentive forces of locator attachment-retained overdentures over a simulated time period of 6 months.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Two acrylic resin models (models 1 and 2) were fabricated to represent an edentulous mandible. In model 1, the midline implant (in the central region) was vertical and the other two implants (in the canine regions) were 20 degrees divergent from the midline, reaching a total divergence of 40 degrees. In model 2, all three implants were vertically oriented, perpendicular to the occlusal plane and parallel to each other. Three-point vertical pull-out forces were employed in a universal testing machine at a constant crosshead speed of 50 mm/min after overdenture construction and a simulation of 6 months of repeated insertions/removals of the overdenture. Locator attachments with different male combinations and bar and clip attachments were tested in model 1. Clear locator attachments and bar and clip attachments were tested in model 2 and served as controls.
The initial retentive forces of all attachments in both models ranged from 26.58 to 62.05 N, whereas the initial retentive forces of the attachments for only model 1 ranged from 49.58 to 62.05 N. The highest retention value was recorded for clear green locator attachments and the lowest for hader bar yellow clip attachments. Locator attachments showed higher retention values than hader bar yellow clip attachments.
All attachment systems demonstrated a decrease in retention over time. Locator attachments provided better retention than hader bar yellow clip attachments. The highest retention values were obtained when green male locators were used in combination with male attachments.
Scherer MD1, McGlumphy EA2, Seghi RR3, Campagni WV4.
Comparison of retention and stability of two implant-retained overdentures based on implant location.
J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Sep;112(3):515-21. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.03.003. Epub 2014 May 10.
- 1Private practice, Sonora, Calif; Assistant Clinical Professor, Advanced Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Loma Linda University; Former Associate Professor, Department of Clinical Sciences, School of Dental Medicine, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nev. Electronic address: firstname.lastname@example.org.
- 2Professor, Restorative and Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
- 3Professor and Chairman, Restorative and Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
- 4Former Director, Graduate Prosthodontics, Restorative and Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:
The location of dental implants and the choice of retentive attachments for implant-retained overdentures are selected based on clinician preference, expert opinion, or empirical information. Limited information is available regarding implant position and the effect on the retention and stability of 2-implant mandibular implant overdentures.
The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the effect of implant location on the in vitro retention and stability of a simulated 2-implant-supported overdenture and to examine the differences among different attachment systems.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
A model that simulates a mandibular edentulous ridge with dental implants in positions that approximate tooth positions, and a cobalt-chromium cast framework attached to a universal testing machine was used to measure the peak load (N) required to disconnect the attachments. Four different types of attachments (Ball/Cap, ERA, Locator, and O-Ring) were used in sequence in various positions on the model to evaluate the effect of implant location on the retention and stability of a simulated 2-implant-retained overdenture. Means were calculated, and differences among the systems, directions, and groups were identified by using a repeated measured ANOVA (α=.05). For differences observed between measurements, the Bonferroni post hoc method at the 5% level of significance was used to determine the location and magnitude of difference.
The interactions between the attachment system, direction of force, and implant location were statistically significant (P=.01). The vertical retention and horizontal stability of a simulated overdenture prosthesis increased with the distal implant location up to the second premolar, and the anteroposterior stability increased with distal implant location. The attachment type affected retention and stability differently by location. Ball attachments produced the highest levels of retention and stability, followed by Locator (pink), O-Ring, and ERA (orange).
The retention and stability of a 2-implant simulated overdenture prosthesis is significantly affected by implant location (P=.01) and abutment type (P=.01).
Copyright © 2014 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Elsyad MA1, Elsaih EA, Khairallah AS.
Marginal bone resorption around immediate and delayed loaded implants supporting a locator-retained mandibular overdenture. A 1-year randomised controlled trial.
J Oral Rehabil. 2014 Aug;41(8):608-18. doi: 10.1111/joor.12182. Epub 2014 May 10.
- 1Department of Removable Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
The aim of this 1-year study was to evaluate and compare crestal bone loss and clinical outcomes of immediate and delayed loaded implants supporting mandibular overdentures with Locator attachments. In a randomised controlled clinical trial, 36 completely edentulous patients (mean age 59.6 years) who desired to improve the stability of their mandibular dentures were randomly assigned into two groups. Each patient received two implants in the canine area of the mandible after a minimal flap reflection. Implants were loaded by mandibular overdentures either 3 months (delayed loading group, G1) or the same day (immediate loading group, G2) after implant placement. Locator attachments were used to retain all overdentures to the implants. Peri-implant vertical (VBL) and horizontal (HBLO) bone losses and clinical parameters [plaque scores (PI), gingival scores (GI), probing depths (PD) and implant stability (ISQ)] were assessed at time of overdenture insertion (T0), 6 months (T6) and 12 months (T12) afteroverdenture insertion. After 12 months of overdenture insertion, two implants (5.5%) failed in G2. Vertical bone loss was significantly higher in G2 compared with G1, while HBLO demonstrated insignificant differences between groups. All clinical parameters (PI, GI, PD and ISQ) did not differ significantly between groups. Vertical bone loss was significantly correlated with PD and HBLO. Immediately loaded two implants supporting aLocator-retained mandibular overdenture are associated with more vertical bone resorption when compared to delayed loaded implants after 1 year. Clinical outcomes do not differ significantly between loading protocols.
Michael D. Scherer, DMD, MS
Implant Attachment Pick-Up Technique for Converting a Denture into an Overdenture
Dental Products Shopper August 2014
Michael D. Scherer, DMD, MS
Stabilizing Loose Dentures with Narrow Diameter Implants
Dental Products Shopper August 2014
Stephens GJ1, di Vitale N, O’Sullivan E, McDonald A.
The influence of interimplant divergence on the retention characteristics of locator attachments, a laboratory study.
J Prosthodont. 2014 Aug;23(6):467-75. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12144. Epub 2014 Apr 21.
The aim of the study was to assess the influence of interimplant divergence on retention of two Locator attachments before and after in vitro simulation of 3 to 5 years of use.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
A hydraulic universal testing machine was used to measure the retention of two blue Locator attachments during 5500 seating and unseating cycles. Ten pairs of Locators were tested with interimplant divergences of 0°, 10°, and 20°. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to examine surface changes of the components. The results were tested with ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc correction when normally distributed. Results that were not normally distributed were tested with Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA by ranks.
At the start of the experiment the 10° group showed significantly more retention than the 0° group, but no significant difference was found between the 0° and 20° groups or the 10° and 20° groups. After 5500 cycles, there was no significant difference in retention between any of the groups. The SEM images showed an approximately equal amount of wear in the nylon patrix inserts from all the groups.
The retention of Locator pairs was not impaired by interimplant divergence of up to 20°. Retention after 5500 removal cycles was less than the initial retention in all groups. The nylon Locator patrices showed wear defects of similar location, type, and magnitude in the SEM images, regardless of interimplant angulation.
Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJ, Slot W, Slater JJ, Vissink A.
A systematic review of implant-supported overdentures in the edentulous maxilla, compared to the mandible: how many implants?
Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014 Summer;7 Suppl 2:S191-201.
BACKGROUND AND AIM:
There is now overwhelming evidence from systematic reviews that a two implant overdenture is the first choice of treatment for the edentulous mandible. Conversely, consensus is lacking for implant-supported maxillary overdentures. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the treatment outcome of concepts used for implant-supported maxillary overdentures, focusing on the survival of implants, survival of maxillary overdentures and condition of the implant surrounding hard and soft tissues after a mean observation period of at least 1 year.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
MEDLINE (1950 to December 2013), EMBASE (1966 to December 2013) and CENTRAL (1800 to December 2013) were searched to identify eligible studies. Two reviewers independently assessed the articles using specific study design-related quality assessment forms.
Out of 195 primarily selected articles, 24 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A metaanalysis showed an implant survival rate of 98.1% and overdenture survival of 99.5% per year in the case of ≥ 6 implants and a splinted (bar) anchorage. In the case of ≤ 4 implants and a splinted (bar) anchorage, implant survival rate and overdenture survival were 97.0% and 96.9% per year, respectively. In the case of ≤ 4 implants and a non-splinted anchorage (ball, locator, telescopic crown), implant survival rate and overdenture survival were 88.9% and 98.8% per year, respectively. The condition of the peri-implant tissues was not reported in most studies.
An implant-supported maxillary overdenture (all studies ≥ 4 implants) provided with a splinted anchorage is accompanied with a highimplant and overdenture survival rate (both >95% per year), while there is an increased risk of implant loss when ≤ 4 implants with a non-splinted anchorage are used.
Economic Strategies to create a Profit Center with the Edentulous Patient
The Profitable Dentist, May 2014
Do we need a radiographic guide? A review of the cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) visualization and treatment planning for narrow-diameter implant overdentures
Implant Practice, May 2014
Restoring the Edentulous Patient with Narrow Diameter Implants
Implant Practice, April 2014
Michael Scherer DMD MS, Andrew Ingel DMD, Krystle Kendall
Flap vs. Flapless: A practical guide with indications, recommendations, and techniques for effective planning and surgical placement of narrow diameter overdenture implants in the mandible
Implant Practice, April 2014
How to Optimize an Existing Partial Denture: Using Narrow-Diameter Implants to Increase Support and Retention
Dentistry Today, March 2014
Click here to read the article
Vere JW, Eliyas S, Wragg PF.
Attitudes of general dental practitioners to the maintenance of Locator retained implant overdentures.
Br Dent J. 2014 Feb;216(3):E5. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.50.
Locator retained implant overdentures are associated with a high incidence of prosthodontic complications. This study investigated whether general dental practitioners (GDPs) were willing to maintain these prostheses in primary dental care.
A questionnaire was distributed to all GDPs referring patients for an implant assessment to the Charles Clifford Dental Hospital, Sheffield between 1 January 2012 and 30 June 2012.
Ninety-four out of one hundred and forty-six questionnaires were returned (response rate: 64%). Thirteen GDPs (14%) were able to identify the Locator attachment system from clinical photographs. Eighty-two GDPs (87%) would adjust the fit surface of a Locator retained implant overdenture. Twenty-three GDPs (25%) would replace a retentive insert, 18 GDPs (19%) would tighten a loose abutment, 68 GDPs (72%) would debride abutments and 25 GDPs (27%) would remake a Locator-retained implant overdenture. Forty-seven GDPs (50%) felt that the maintenance of these prostheses was not their responsibility. The main barriers identified to maintenance by GDPs were a lack of training, knowledge and equipment. Seventy GDPs (74%) would like further training in this area.
GDPs are not familiar with the Locator attachment system and are reluctant to maintain implant retained overdentures. GDPs would like further training in this area.
Ionescu C1, Gălbinaşu BM, Manolea H, Pătraşcu I.
Implant overdenture and Locator system in edentulous patient with severely resorbed mandible - a case report.
Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2014;55(2 Suppl):693-6.
Clinical studies have revealed that the main objective of implants in the edentulous jaw is to provide support for fixed prostheses or to stabilize complete dentures. Various attachment systems were developed for universal use in partially and completely edentulous patients such as clasps, cone-shape telescope copings, magnets, bar systems, locators. The aim of this case report is to present the Locator attachment that does not use the splinting of implants. Four implants were placed in the foraminal region and the Locator attachment system was used to connect overdentures to mandibular dental implants. The results proved that the Locator attachment system offers the possibility to obtain a higher retention and an improved stability for overdentures in edentulous patients with a severely resorbed mandible and lack of vertical space between the arches.
Martínez-Lage-Azorín JF1, Segura-Andrés G2, Faus-López J3, Agustín-Panadero R4.
Rehabilitation with implant-supported overdentures in total edentulous patients: A review.
J Clin Exp Dent. 2013 Dec 1;5(5):e267-72. doi: 10.4317/jced.50817. eCollection 2013.
The main aim of this review article is to discuss implant-supported overdentures (ISOs) as treatment in edentulous patients. Besides, we will try to discuss among the different treatment options in such patients and to analyze their validity when ISOs are compared with other clinical modalities. At the same time, we will try to suggest clinical guidelines supported by current clinical studies.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
We performed a Medline search and review of pertinent articles on the mentioned subject from 1986 to 2011. As a searching strategy, we used the following words: implant-supported overdentures, attachment systems, Locator attachment, cantilever, fixed prosthesis.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS:
Implant-supported overdentures constitute an accurate and predictable treatment option and achieve a higher patients’ satisfaction. This type of treatment constitutes a cheaper treatment than fixed prostheses and in some patients, with loss of lip support or with an interoclusal space larger than 15 mm, the choice of implant-supported overdentures seems to prevent future aesthetic or phonetic problems. Key words:Overdentures, implant occlusion, implant rehabilitation, total edentulous rehabilitation, fixed prosthesis.
Zou D, Wu Y, Huang W, Wang F, Wang S, Zhang Z, Zhang Z.
A 3-year prospective clinical study of telescopic crown, bar, and locator attachments for removable four implant-supported maxillary overdentures.
Int J Prosthodont. 2013 Nov-Dec;26(6):566-73. doi: 10.11607/ijp.3485.
To evaluate telescopic crown (TC), bar, and locator attachments used in removable four implant-supported overdentures for patients with edentulous maxillae.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
A total of 30 maxillary edentulous patients were enrolled in a 3-year prospective study. Ten patients (group A) were treated with overdentures supported by TCs, 10 patients (group B) with overdentures supported by bar attachments, and 10 patients (group C) with overdentures supported by locator attachments. A total of 120 implants were used to restore oral function. During the 3-year follow-up period, implantsurvival and success rates, biologic and mechanical complications, prosthodontic maintenance efforts, and patient satisfaction were evaluated.
All 30 patients were available for the 3-year follow-up and exhibited 100% implant survival and success rates. Peri-implant marginal bone resorption was not statistically significant for the three groups. There were lower plaque, bleeding, gingiva, and calculus indices in group C compared with groups A and B. The number of prosthodontic maintenance visits revealed eight complications in the TC group, seven complications in the bar group, and four complications in the locator group. However, there were no differences in the clinical effects of the overdentures in the three groups.
Within the limits of this prospective study, it was concluded that the locator system produced superior clinical results compared with the TC and bar attachments in terms of peri-implant hygiene parameters, the frequency of prosthodontic maintenance measures, cost, and ease ofdenture preparation. However, longer-term prospective studies are required to confirm these results.
An Affordable Overdenture Option for an Edentulous Ridge
Implant Practice, October 2013
Mahajan N1, Thakkur RK2.
Overdenture locator attachments for atrophic mandible.
Contemp Clin Dent. 2013 Oct;4(4):509-11. doi: 10.4103/0976-237X.123060.
- 1Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dental Science, Amargadh, Gujarat, India.
- 2Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Manubhai Dental College and Hospital, Vadodara, Gujarat, India.
Implant-supported overdentures provide a good opportunity for dentists to improve oral health and quality-of-life of patients. Atrophic mandible poses a significant challenge to successful oral rehabilitation with dental implants. In this article, the fabrication of lower overdenture by two narrow platform implants is described with dual retentive, resilient, self-locating locator attachment system. The locator attachment system has the lowest profile in comparison with the ball and bar attachments and is versatile up to 40° of divergence between two implants. By using locators as attachments, we can meet functional, economic and social expectation of patients with ease and satisfaction.
Cardoso RC1, Gerngross PJ, Dominici JT, Kiat-amnuay S.
Survey of currently selected dental implants and restorations by prosthodontists.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013 Jul-Aug;28(4):1017-25. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2855.
The purpose of this study was to survey the prosthodontists of the American College of Prosthodontists (ACP) and the American Academy of Maxillofacial Prosthetics (AAMP) to identify the most commonly used implant both during their training and currently in practice, and to evaluate overall restorative preference. Participants were asked to rank criteria that make an implant company desirable and important features when selecting an implant.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
An electronic survey was emailed to 1,739 members of the ACP and AAMP.
The majority of respondents (79%) were trained using Nobel Biocare brand implants, which was also the brand most often selected by participants for use in all regions of the oral cavity (34% to 39%, location dependent). Abutment preferences varied by area: incisors and canines (29%) and highly esthetic areas (53%) were more likely to be restored with custom milled zirconia abutments, while prefabricated titanium abutments were preferred for premolars and molar areas. Conventional loading was most often applied, ranging from 95% in medically compromised patients to 55% in esthetic areas. The majority of participants (86%) used Locator attachments for complete overdenture restorations. Also, respondents selected an implant company based on features and literature support versus cost and customer service. The implant features deemed most important were the design of the internal connection and ease of finding replacement parts; thread design and variety of abutments were deemed least important. Respondents reported that while implant planning software was used, they rarely/never order the concurrent surgical guide.
Within the study’s limitations, the majority of prosthodontists select implants based on training, features, and literature support.
Troeltzsch M1, Troeltzsch V, Brodine AH, Frankenberger R, Messlinger K, Troeltzsch M.
Clinical performance and peri-implant parameters of 132 implants supporting locator-retained overdentures: a case series of 33 patients.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013 Jul-Aug;28(4):1132-9. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3009.
- 1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Ansbach General Hospital, Ansbach, Germany. email@example.com
The aim of this study was to assess the long-term reliability of Locator-retained mandibular or maxillary overdentures and to examine clinical and radiographic parameters of the supporting implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
The authors performed a retrospective analysis of a case series. After implant placement and a submerged healing phase of about 3 months, all implants were restored with Locator-retained overdentures. The follow-up examinations included the assessment of the Plaque Index (PI) and sulcus Bleeding Index (SBI) as well as peri-implant soft tissue parameters, such as bleeding on probing (BOP) and pocket probing depth (PPD). The mean marginal bone loss was measured on panoramic radiographs. The clinical performance of Locator components and the prosthetic restoration were evaluated. Descriptive statistics were computed. For statistical analysis, non-parametric and parametric tests with respect to the variable scale were used. The significance level was set as P ≤ .05.
The sample was composed of 33 patients (18 men, 15 women) with a mean age of 66.8 years who received 132 implants (84 in the anterior maxilla, 48 in the anterior mandible). After 32.9 months of follow-up, one maxillary implant was lost. All prosthetic restorations were still functionally in place at the last follow-up appointment with moderate prosthodontic maintenance effort. Clinical parameters and radiographs revealed healthy tissues around most implants.
Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that Locators are a predictable alternative for anchorage of mandibular and maxillary overdentures with good clinical performance of both the prosthetic restorations and the supporting implants.
Akça K1, Çavuşoğlu Y, Sağirkaya E, Çehreli MC.
Early-loaded one-stage implants retaining mandibular overdentures by two different mechanisms: 5-year results.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013 May-Jun;28(3):824-30. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2994.
To compare the biologic and prosthetic outcomes of implants loaded early to retain mandibular overdentures by means of two different attachment systems.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Patients were screened according to specific inclusion/exclusion criteria and randomly allocated to treatment groups involving two-implant-supported early loaded mandibular overdentures retained by ball attachments or Locator attachments. Marginal bone loss, Plaque Index, peri-implant infection, Bleeding Index, prosthetic complications, and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates of the groups were assessed at the 5-year recall.
Among the 29 patients (58 implants) who completed the study, one implant was lost during healing; all implants survived after prosthesis delivery. Bone loss in the ball attachment group (0.77 ± 0.05 mm) was significantly greater than that in the Locator group (0.59 ± 0.03 mm). The Plaque and Bleeding indices of both groups were comparable, and peri-implant inflammation scores in both groups were zero for all implants. The frequencies of activation of the matrix, replacement of the matrix, and denture reline in the ball attachment group were significantly higher than those observed in the Locator group. While assessments for the absence of any complication showed that the 1- and 3-year Kaplan-Meier survival probabilities of both groups were comparable, when activation of the retainer was excluded, survival probabilities of the ball attachment group were higher.
The biologic outcomes of early loaded mandibular overdentures retained by ball attachments or Locators were comparable. Although the frequency of prosthetic complications with ball attachments was higher, this did not decrease the survival probability for the treatment.
Cordaro L1, di Torresanto VM, Petricevic N, Jornet PR, Torsello F.
Single unit attachments improve peri-implant soft tissue conditions in mandibular overdentures supported by four implants.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 May;24(5):536-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02426.x. Epub 2012 Feb 10.
To evaluate the clinical performance as well as patients’ and clinicians’ satisfaction on two different prosthodontic retention systems for implant-overdentures in the mandible.
In this retrospective study, patients provided with four intraforaminal implants with at least 12 months of follow-up since overdenture delivery were evaluated. A total of 39 patients were treated either with Locator(®) attachment or with cad-cam milled bar. Clinical parameters such as Peri-implant Probing Depth (PPD), Plaque Index (PI), and Bleeding on Probing (BOP) were evaluated. Patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions regarding the outcome were assessed on visual analog scales (VAS).
The mean follow-up was 13 months in the Locator(®) group and 18 months in the Bar group and no implants were lost. The Locator group showed better results for PPD, PI, and BOP values. Patients’ satisfaction was high in both groups, whereas the clinicians found better hygienic conditions and soft tissue health in the Locator group.
Although the patients’ satisfaction was similar in both groups the Locator(®) system demonstrated better soft tissues scores because hygienic maintenance was more complicated around bars. This may increase the frequency of chronic inflammations around the implants.
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
Narrow Diameter Implants with LOCATOR Attachments for Overdentures
DentalTown, March 2013
Stergiou A, Juszczyk AS, Clark RK, Radford DR.
The retentive forces of the locator attachment system at different angulations.
Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2012 Dec;20(4):168-74.
The change of retentive force of three types of Locator inserts when the implant analogue was positioned perpendicular to horizontal, 5 degrees and 10 degrees to perpendicular after 4,200 cycles in vitro was measured using an EnduraTech fatigue testing machine lubricated with artificial saliva. The more rapid decrease in retention occurred up to three months and stabilized after one year of simulated use. The Locator inserts provided more retention when the analogue was placed at 5 degrees to perpendicular compared to 0 degrees and 10 degrees after 9 months of simulated clinical use. After 2 years of simulated clinical use, there was a reduction in retention for all the three inserts of between 70% and 80%.
Uludag B1, Polat S.
Retention characteristics of different attachment systems of mandibular overdentures retained by two or three implants.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 Nov-Dec;27(6):1509-13.
The purpose of this study was to quantify and compare the retentive forces of five different prosthetic attachment designs on mandibular overdentures retained by two or three implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Two photoelastic acrylic resin models of an edentulous mandible were cast. In one model, three implants were aligned parallel to each other and oriented perpendicular to the occlusal plane. The distal implants were placed in the canine regions, with an interimplant distance of 22 mm. In the other model, two implants were placed using the same approach, with an interimplant distance of 22 mm. Five retention mechanisms were studied on both models: a bar with yellow clips, a milled galvanoformed bar, a bar with two clear distal locator attachments, a bar with two distal Ceka attachments, and a bar with clear locator attachments. Ten dentures were fabricated in clear acrylic resin. The specimens were loaded in tension at a crosshead speed of 50 mm/min in a universal testing machine. Five hundred forty cycles of repeated insertions and removals were performed to simulate 6 months of clinical function.
Initial retention forces ranged from 23.33 to 54.32 N. Retentive values of the clear locator attachments on the three-implant model were higher than those for other attachments.
All designs demonstrated a decrease in retention from the initial testing to the final pull-out test. This decrease was significant for all designs.
Krennmair G1, Seemann R, Fazekas A, Ewers R, Piehslinger E.
Patient preference and satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or locator attachments: a crossover clinical trial.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 Nov-Dec;27(6):1560-8.
To determine patient satisfaction and preference for implant-supported mandibular overdentures (IOD) retained with ball or Locator attachments. In addition, peri-implant conditions and prosthodontic maintenance efforts for the final attachments were evaluated after 1 year of function.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
In this crossover clinical trial, 20 edentulous patients were recruited to receive two mandibular implants in the canine region and were provided with implant-retained mandibular overdentures and new complete maxillary dentures. Implant-retained mandibular overdentures were stabilized with either ball attachments or Locator attachments, in random order. After 3 months of function, the attachments in the existing denture were changed. Questionnaires on satisfaction/complaints with the prostheses were administered at baseline (with the old dentures) and after 3 months of function with each attachment, thus providing for an intraindividual comparison. The decision for the final attachment chosen was based on the patient’s preference. For the definitive attachment, peri-implant conditions (peri-implant marginal bone resorption, pocket depth, and Plaque Index, Gingival Index, and Bleeding Index) as well as prosthodontic maintenance efforts and satisfaction score were evaluated after an insertion period of 1 year.
Nineteen (95%) patients completed the study (1 dropout). Patient satisfaction improved significantly (P less than.05) from baseline (old dentures) to the new prostheses retained with each of the two attachment types for all domains of satisfaction. However, there were no differences between ball or Locator attachment for any items of satisfaction evaluated and neither attachment had a significant patient preference. No differences for peri-implant parameters or for patient satisfaction were noted between the definitive attachments (ball, n=10; Locator, n=9) after 1 year. Although the overall incidence rate of prosthodontic maintenance did not significantly differ between both retention modalities, the Locator attachment required more postinsertion aftercare (activation of retention) than the ball anchors.
Cheng T1, Sun G, Huo J, He X, Wang Y, Ren YF.
Patient satisfaction and masticatory efficiency of single implant-retained mandibular overdentures using the stud and magnetic attachments.
J Dent. 2012 Nov;40(11):1018-23. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.08.011. Epub 2012 Aug 24.
To study patient satisfaction and masticatory efficiency of single implant-retained mandibular overdentures using the stud and magnetic attachments in a randomized clinical trial with a crossover design.
Patients received a single implant placed in the midline of the mandible and either a stud (Locator) or a magnetic (Magfit) attachment, assigned at random. Patient satisfaction, including patient comfort, speech, chewing ability and retention, and masticatory efficiency measured by chewing peanuts, were assessed before and 3 months after attachment insertion. Patient satisfaction and masticatory efficiency were evaluated again 3 months after insertion of the alternate attachment bodies. The outcomes were compared before and after insertion of the attachments and between the two types of attachments using Wilcoxon signed rank tests.
Patient overall satisfaction, comfort, speech, chewing ability, and retention improved significantly after insertion of both types of attachment bodies (p<0.05). Masticatory efficiencies also increased in both the Locator and the Magfit groups (p<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in patient overall satisfaction, comfort, speech, and retention between the two types of attachments (p>0.05). The Locatorattachments performed better in perceived chewing ability than the Magfit (p<0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference in masticatory efficiency between the two attachment types (p>0.05).
Clinical outcomes were significantly improved in single implant-retained mandibular overdentures using either the Locator or the Magfit magnetic attachments. There was no difference in masticatory efficiency between the two attachment types.
Paresh B. Patel
Narrow-diameter Implants: A Minimally Invasive Solution for Overdenture Treatment
Dental Learning, November 2012
Cakarer S1, Can T, Yaltirik M, Keskin C.
Complications associated with the ball, bar and Locator attachments for implant-supported overdentures.
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2011 Nov 1;16(7):e953-9.
The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the complications associated with the different attachments used in implant-supported overdentures, including prosthetic problems and implant failures. A comparison of ball, bar and Locator (Zest Anchors, Inc, homepage, Escondido, CA, USA) attachments, in completely edentulous patients with two, three or four implants, was conducted.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
A total of 36 edentulous patients (20 female, 16 male) with a mean age of 66.3 years, were enrolled in the study. The patients were treated with 95 implants, for the prosthetic restoration of the maxilla or the mandible. The mean follow-up time was 41.17 months. Prosthetic complications including, fractured overdentures, replacements of O-ring attachment and retention clips, implant failures, hygiene problems, mucosal enlargements, attachment fractures, retention loss and dislodgement of the attachments were recorded and evaluated. The recall visits at 3, 6, 12 months and, annually thereafter.
Fourteen complications in the ballattachment group and 7 complications in the bar group were observed. No complications were observed in the locator group. The difference was found to be as statistically significant (p=0,009). Six of the 95 implants had failed. Totally 39 implant overdentures were applied. Three prostheses were renewed because of fractures.
Within the limits of the present study, it was concluded that the locator system showed superior clinical results than the ball and the bar attachments, with regard to the rate of prosthodontic complications and the maintenance of the oral function.
Vere J1, Hall D, Patel R, Wragg P.
Prosthodontic maintenance requirements of implant-retained overdentures using the locator attachment system.
Int J Prosthodont. 2012 Jul-Aug;25(4):392-4.
The aim of this study was to investigate the prosthodontic maintenance requirements of patients rehabilitated with maxillary and mandibular implant-retained overdentures using the Locator Attachment System by retrospectively reviewing case records. Fifty patients made 112 unplanned return visits over a 3-year period. The most common reasons for returning were denture adjustments (n = 45), inadequate retention (n = 39), and loosening of the implant abutments (n = 14). Implant-retained overdentures using the Locator Attachment System have comparable prosthodontic maintenance requirements to other attachment systems. Problems associated with these prostheses are usually simple to resolve chairside.
El-Sheikh AM1, Shihabuddin OF, Ghoraba SM.
Two versus three narrow-diameter implants with locator attachments supporting mandibular overdentures: a two-year prospective study.
Int J Dent. 2012;2012:285684. doi: 10.1155/2012/285684. Epub 2012 Jun 18.
- 1Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, Tanta 31111, Egypt.
Purpose. To compare treatment outcome (survival rate, condition of hard and soft peri-implant tissues) and prosthodontic maintenance requirements of two versus three narrow-diameter bone level implants with Locator attachments supporting mandibular overdentures. Materials and Methods. Twenty completely edentulous patients with atrophic mandibles were treated. Ten patients (Group A) were treated with overdentures supported by two narrow (3.3-mm diameter) implants (Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) and ten patients (Group B) were treated with overdentures supported by three narrow implants. Locator (Zest Anchors, USA) attachments were used for prosthetic anchorage. Standardized clinical and radiographic parameters (survival rate, plaque index, calculus index, gingival index, bleeding index, probing depth and marginal bone loss) were evaluated at the time of the completion of the prosthetic treatment (baseline) and after 6, 12 and 24 months of functional loading. Prosthodontic maintenance requirements were also scored. Results. Only one implant was lost (Group B) during the healing period. There were no significant differences with regards to any of the studied clinical and radiographic parameters between the two groups (P > 0.05). Few prosthetic complications were recorded. Conclusions. No need to insert more than two narrow-diameter bone level implants with Locator attachments in cases of atrophic mandible to support an overdenture, however, long-term prospective studies are required to support this notion.
Bilhan H1, Geckili O, Mumcu E, Bilmenoglu C.
Maintenance requirements associated with mandibular implant overdentures: clinical results after first year of service.
J Oral Implantol. 2011 Dec;37(6):697-704. doi: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00096. Epub 2010 Oct 8.
The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the prosthodontic maintenance requirements during the first year of service of mandibular overdentures supported by interforaminal implants and to assess the influence of attachment type, implant number, and bite force on these requirements. Fifty-nine patients treated with mandibular implant overdentures between the years 2004 and 2009 and appearing in the 12th-month recall were included in this study. The overdentures constituted 4 groups: 2 single interforaminal implants (1 group with locator and 1 group with ball attachments), 3 single interforaminal implants, 3 splinted interforaminal implants (bar), and 4 splinted interforaminal implants (bar). During the examination, prosthetic parameters such as occlusion, tissue adaptation, condition of the retentive mechanism (matrice and patrice), and the condition of the denture-bearing tissues were evaluated and recorded. No statistically significant relation was found between attachment type, bite force values, implant number, and the occurring complications except the need for relining, which was found significantly more in the ball attachments than in other attachment groups (P = .03). After 12 months following the overdenture insertion, there seems to be no relation between occurring complications and patient-related factors, such as maximum bite force, age, and gender, as well as factors related to the overdentures such as number and type of attachments.
You W, Masri R, Romberg E, Driscoll CF, You T.
The effect of denture cleansing solutions on the retention of pink locator attachments after multiple pulls: an in vitro study.
J Prosthodont. 2011 Aug;20(6):464-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00722.x. Epub 2011 Jul 20.
The effect of denture cleansing solutions and multiple pulls on the retention of pink Locator patrices was studied.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Five groups of pink Locator attachments (3.0 lb. Light Retention replacement patrix attachments; five in each group) were soaked for the equivalent of 6 months of clinical use in the following solutions: water (control), Efferdent, Polident Overnight, 6.15% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCL, 1:10 dilution), and Listerine mouthwash. A universal testing machine set at a 2 in/min crosshead speed was used to perform 548 pulls (548 cycles of insertion and removal). The reduction in load to dislodgement (retention) after the initial pull and the final pull and the percent reduction in retention after 6 months were compared between the groups using a one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) Test (α= 0.05).
Denture cleansing solutions significantly reduced the retentive values of pink Locator attachments after the initial pull (F = 17.435, p < 0.0001). The retentive values of Efferdent, Listerine, Polident Overnight, and water were significantly higher than the retentive value of the attachments soaked in NaOCl. After 6 months of simulated use (548 pulls), the four denture cleansing solutions had significant effects on the retentive values of pink Locator attachments (F = 5.855, p = 0.003). The retentive values for attachments soaked in NaOCl (7.29 ± 1.0 N) were significantly lower than those of attachments soaked in Listerine (15.82 ± 4.7 N) and in Polident Overnight (14.41 ± 3.6 N). These cleansing solutions also had a significant effect on the percentage of retention lost (F = 3.271, p = 0.032). The loss of retention in attachments soaked in Listerine (29 ± 9%) was significantly lower than attachments soaked in water (53 ± 12%). The loss of retention in attachments soaked in Efferdent was 49 ± 9%; in Polident Overnight, 34 ± 18%; and in NaOCl, 42 ± 11%. There was no significant difference in the percentage of retention loss between water, Efferdent, NaOCl, and Polident Overnight. There was also no significant difference in the percentage of retention loss between Efferdent, NaOCl, Polident Overnight, and Listerine.CONCLUSION:
NaOCl significantly decreased the retentive value of Locators. Therefore, it should not be routinely recommended for use as a denture cleanser. Listerine significantly increased the retention of the Locator attachments; however, it is premature to recommend Listerine for use as a denture cleanser.
Chen IC1, Brudvik JS, Mancl LA, Rubenstein JE, Chitswe K, Raigrodski AJ.
Freedom of rotation of selected overdenture attachments: an in vitro study.
J Prosthet Dent. 2011 Aug;106(2):78-86. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60099-1.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:
Attachments for mandibular overdentures may not allow for adequate freedom of rotation.
The purpose of this study was to subject 3 commonly used stud types of resilient attachments to rotation and to measure and compare the degree of rotation that occurs before the attachments bind.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
Three stud attachments (ERA, Locator Extended Range, O-Ring System) with their corresponding metal housings were evaluated, first for a single implant system and secondly for a 2-attachment parallel implant system for the mandibular arch. Both the manufacturers’ most and least retentive components were tested in each system. In the Locator system, the medium retention (3 lbs) for the standard is the most retentive of the extended range. A total of 60 test specimens, 5 per group, were fabricated. The attachments were connected to a 115-mm rod and attached to a testing device composed of a base, implant analogs, and a vertical plate holding graph paper. A free-sliding plastic block, which supported the metal rod parallel to the base, was removed to release the rod. The distance the rod fell was photographed and input into a computer with software designed to measure linear movement. Three-way ANOVA with heteroscedasticity consistent standard errors was used for data analyses (α=.05).
Significant differences found among the most retentive components showed that the Locator had a greater freedom of rotation than the ERA (P=.001). The most retentive components in all systems showed that 1 attachment had a greater freedom of rotation than 2 (P=.005). When testing the least retentive components, all systems were significantly different (P<.003), with the freedom of rotation ranking being O-Ring System > Locator Extended Range > ERA. For all 3 systems, the least retentive components showed the most freedom (P≤.008).
The least retentive components offer greater rotation than the most retentive components for all attachment systems tested and for both single and double attachments. Using the most retentive components, the Locator Extended Range attachment allows greater rotation than does the ERA for both single and double attachments. Using the least retentive components, the ORS attachment allows the most rotation and ERA the least for both single and double attachments. Using the most retentive components, one attachment allows greater rotation than does 2 attachments for the attachment systems evaluated.
Copyright © 2011 The Editorial Council of the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Influence of Matrix Attachment Installation Load on Movement and Resultant Forces in Implant Overdentures.
Goto T, Nagao K, Ishida Y, Tomotake Y, Ichikawa T.
J Prosthodont. Jun. 27, 2014. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12177.
Effects of in vitro cyclic dislodging on retentive force and removal torque of three overdenture attachment systems.
Kobayashi M, Srinivasan M, Ammann P, Perriard J, Ohkubo C, Müller F, Belser UC, Schimmel M.
Clin Oral Implants Res. Apr. 2014; Vol. 25, No. 4:426-34. doi: 10.1111/clr.12156. Epub 2013 Apr 9.
Five-year clinical trial using three attachment systems for implant overdentures.
Cristache CM, Muntianu LA, Burlibasa M, Didilescu AC.
Clin Oral Implants Res. Feb. 2014; Vol. 25, No. 2:e171-8. doi: 10.1111/clr.12086. Epub 2012 Dec 21.
Summary of: attitudes of general dental practitioners to the maintenance of Locator retained implant overdentures.
Br Dent J. Feb. 2014; Vol. 216, No. 3:134-5. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.79.
Effect of implant height differences on different attachment types and peri-implant bone in mandibular two-implant overdentures: 3D finite element study.
Ozan O, Ramoglu S.
J Oral Implantol. Jan. 28, 2014.
Metal-reinforced single implant mandibular overdenture retained by an attachment: a clinical report.
Grageda E, Rieck B.
J Prosthet Dent. Jan. 2014; Vol. 111, No. 1:16-9. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.07.009. Epub 2013 Nov 5.
Clinical and radiographic evaluation of narrow- vs. regular-diameter dental implants: a 3-year follow-up. A retrospective study.
Zweers J, van Doornik A, Hogendorf EA, Quirynen M, Van der Weijden GA.
Clin Oral Implants Res. Dec. 20, 2013. doi: 10.1111/clr.12309.
Comparison of retention and stability of implant-retained overdentures based upon implant number and distribution.
Scherer MD, McGlumphy EA, Seghi RR, Campagni WV.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. Nov./Dec. 2013; Vol. 28, No. 6:1619-28. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3067.
Single implant in the mandibular molar region of edentulous patient.
Zhai JJ, Wen C, Teng MH, Liang X.
Saudi Med J. Sep. 2013; Vol. 34, No. 9:963-7.
Maximum dislodging forces of mandibular implant-assisted removable partial dentures: in vitro assessment.
Gharehchahi J, Asadzadeh N, Mirmortazavi A, Shakeri MT.
J Prosthodont. Oct. 2013; Vol. 22, No. 7:543-9. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12048. Epub 2013 Apr 1.
Stud attachments for the mandibular implant-retained overdentures: Prosthetic complications. A literature review.
Saudi Dent J. Apr. 2013; Vol. 25, No. 2:53-60. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2012.12.003. Epub 2013 Feb 6.
Effect of Implant Angulation on Attachment Retention in Mandibular Two-Implant Overdentures: A Clinical Study.
Jabbour Z, Fromentin O, Lassauzay C, Abi Nader S, Correa JA, Feine J, de Albuquerque Junior RF.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. Jan. 2013. doi: 10.1111/cid.12030.
Implant overdenture using a locator bar system by drill and tapping technique in a mandible edentulous patient: a case report.
Kim MS, Yoon MJ, Huh JB, Jeon YC, Jeong CM.
J Adv Prosthodont. May 2012; Vol. 4, No. 2:116-20. doi: 10.4047/jap.2012.4.2.116. Epub 2012 May 30.
Wear simulation effects on overdenture stud attachments.
Rutkunas V, Mizutani H, Takahashi H, Iwasaki N.
Dent Mater J. Nov. 25, 2011.
Attachment systems for implant overdenture: influence of implant inclination on retentive and lateral forces.
Yang TC, Maeda Y, Gonda T, Kotecha S.
Clin Oral Implants Res. Nov. 2011; Vol. 22, No. 11:1315-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02137.x. Epub 2011 Mar 23.
Mandibular two-implant overdentures: three-year prosthodontic maintenance using the locator attachment system.
Mackie A, Lyons K, Thomson WM, Payne AG.
Int J Prosthodont. Jul./Aug. 2011; Vol. 24, No. 4:328-31.
Clinical performance and material properties of single-implant overdenture attachment systems.
Alsabeeha NH, Swain MV, Payne AG.
Int J Prosthodont. May/Jun 2011; Vol. 24, No. 3:247-54.
Effects of attachment position and shoulder orientation during calibration on the accuracy of the acromial tracker.
Shaheen AF, Alexander CM, Bull AM.
J Biomech. Apr. 2011; Vol. 44, No. 7:1410-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.01.013.
Mandibular single-implant overdentures: preliminary results of a randomised-control trial on early loading with different implant diameters and attachment systems.
Alsabeeha NH, Payne AG, De Silva RK, Thomson WM.
Clin Oral Implants Res. Mar. 2011; Vol. 22, No. 3:330-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02004.x. Epub 2010 Sep 27.
Effect of simulated masticatory loading on the retention of stud attachments for implant overdentures.
Abi Nader S, de Souza RF, Fortin D, De Koninck L, Fromentin O, Albuquerque Junior RF.
J Oral Rehabil. Mar. 2011; Vol. 38, No. 3:157-64. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02145.x. Epub 2010 Sep 6.
Immediate loading of unsplinted implants in the anterior mandible for overdentures: a case series.
Kan, J, Rungcharassaeng K, Lozada J, Roe P.
The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants Sep./Oct. 2010; Vol. 25, No. 5: 1028-1035.
A comparison of three different attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: one-year report.
Kleis WK, Kämmerer PW, Hartmann S, Al-Nawas B, Wagner W.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. Sep. 2010; Vol. 12, No. 3:209-18. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00154.x. Epub 2009 Mar 31.
Zest Locator bar abutments: increasing dental abutment retention on an implant-supported cast bar.
Inside Dentistry Jul./Aug. 2010; 104.
Maximizing treatment outcomes with removable partial prosthesis through the inclusion of implants and locator attachments.
Fugazzotto PA, Lightfoot WS.
J Mass Dent Soc. Spring 2010; Vol. 59, No. 1:20-2. No abstract available.
Attachment systems for mandibular single-implant overdentures: an in vitro retention force investigation on different designs.
Alsabeeha N, Atieh M, Swain MV, Payne AG.
Int J Prosthodont. Mar./Apr. 2010; Vol. 23, No. 2:160-6.
VLC record bases increase predictability in removable prosthodontics.
Spectrum Denturism Mar. 2010; Vol. 4, No. 1: 16-22.
Langzeitstudie zu Locator-system und Straumann-implantaten.
Praktische Implantologie und Implantatprothetik PIP Mar. 2010: 24-31.
Vericore custom milled bars deliver best of both worlds.
Lab Management Today Feb. 2010: 64-65.
Testing the retention of attachments for implant overdentures - validation of an original force measurement system.
Fromentin O, Lassauzay C, Abi Nader S, Feine J, de Albuquerque Junior RF.
J Oral Rehabil. Jan. 2010; Vol. 37, No. 1:54-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.02020.x. Epub 2009 Nov 11.
Management of removable prosthetics with malaligned implants present: a case report.
TeamWork 2010; Vol. 2 No. 4: 22-30.
2001 - 2009
- [Low-cost simple anchorage systems in the removable hybrid prosthesis. Locator Root Attachment and Würzburg post].
Teubner E, Galindo ML, Arnold D, Marinello CP.
Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2009; Vol. 119, No. 6:593-610. French, German.
- [Locator or ball attachment: a guide for clinical decision making].
Büttel AE, Bühler NM, Marinello CP.
Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2009; Vol. 119, No. 9:901-18. French, German.
- Upgradeable dentistry, part 3.
Dentistry Today Nov. 2009: 94-99.
- The forgotten implant: subperiosteal.
Implant Tribune Nov. 2009; Vol. 4, No. 11: 1-8.
- Implant retained over-dentures made more predictable.
Chopra S, Hayter P.
Implant Practice Nov. 2009; Vol. 2, No. 4: 44-45. Vol. 3, No. 3: 14-16.
- Predictable implant-supported partials: a resin record bas technique.
Dentalcompare.com Oct. 19, 2009.
- Treatment options for the edentulous mandible.
Kendrick S, Wong D.
Dentalcetoday.com Oct. 2009: 72-76.
- Prosthodontic treatment considerations and management of a frail 87-year old patient.
Vorster C, Vorster V Z, Andrew W.
International Dentistry SA Vol. 11, No. 5 Sep./Oct. 2009.
- The in vitro effect of different implant angulations and cyclic dislodgement on the retentive properties of an overdenture attachment system.
Al-Ghafli SA, Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Kang K.
J Prosthet Dent. Sep. 2009; Vol. 102 No. 3:140-7. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60134-7.
- The change in retentive values of locator attachments and hader clips over time.
Evtimovska E, Masri R, Driscoll CF, Romberg E.
J Prosthodont. Aug. 2009; Vol. 18, No. 6:479-83. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00474.x. Epub 2009 Jun 3.
- Ten legacy implants for overdentures using meissinger ridge expansion kit.
Dentaltown.com Jun. 2009.
- Solutions for severely angulated implants in the mandibular overdenture: a clinical report.
Akkad S, Richards M.
J. Prosthodontics Jun. 2009; Vol. 18, Issue 4: 342-347.
- Full and partial removable implant prosthetics in the general practice.
Dentaltown May 2009: 56-64.
- Removable implant-retained overdentures: a case report.
Dentistry Today May 2009: 74-79.
- A comparative in vitro study on the retention and stability of implant-supported overdentures.
Quintessence Int. Apr. 2009; Vol. 40, No. 4:313-9.
- Mandibular implant-retained complete overdenture using retentive abutments: a case report.
Saha S, Ray-Chaudhuri A.
Removable Prosthodontics Apr. 2009: 154-157.
- Complete denture therapy: how to accomplish optimum patient satisfaction.
Inside Dent. Mar. 2009: 68-70.
- Attachment dentistry: a nuts and bolts primer.
Dental Tribune Feb. 28, 2009: 7-8.
- The Locator attachment: free-standing versus bar-overdentures.
Dental Labor Intl. Plus Feb. 2009; Vol. 1: 20-23.
- An implant-retained maxillary overdenture to obturate a patient oronasal communication: a case report.
J. Oral Implantology Jan. 2009; Vol. 35, No. 1: 12-17.
- Short Implants: a viable treatment option in the anatomically challenged patient.
Inside Dent. Jan. 2009: 44-50.
- The ankylose-syncone overdenture system: the biology, diagnosis and treatment.
Implant Tribune Jan. 2009; Vol. 4, No. 1: 1-12.
- Building a foundation.
Dental Products Report Jan. 2009: 70-72.
- Implant retained overdentures using Locator attachments.
Jun J-H. et. al.
Yonsei Univ. College of Dent., Seoul, Korea. 2008.
- Palatal mini-implants to increase retention and stability of implant-retained maxillary overdentures: a case report.
Machado C. et. al.
Implant Dent. 2008; Vol. 17, No. 4: 402-404.
- Expanding the benefits of implant therapy: implant-retained removable partial dentures.
Func. Esthetics & Restorative Dent. 2008; Series 2, No. 3: 38-42.
- Small-diameter implants for optimal stabilization of implant-supported overdentures.
Misch K, Neiva R.
PPAD 2008; Vol. 19, No. 7: 428-431.
- Prosthodontic management of sulcoplasty and sialodochoplasty with a conforming surgical stent.
Berg R, Goldman B, Kurtz K, Kraut R.
J. Prosth. 2008; Vol. 17: 52-54.
- Implant overdentures: a new standard of care for edentulous patients – current concepts and techniques.
Func. Esthetics & Restorative Dent. 2008; Series 1, No. 2: 30-36
- A simple predictable intra-oral technique for attaching a mandibular implant-retained overdenture using Locator attachments.
The Esthetic Zone Oct. 2008; Vol. 2: 14-15.
- Processing Locators to overdentures.
Dental Lab Products Oct. 2008: 58-59.
- Implant overdentures: a new standard of care for edentulous patients – current concepts and techniques.
Compedium Jun. 2008; Vol. 29, No. 5: 270-276.
- Lab techniques for use of the Locator attachment in bar-overdenture applications.
TeamWork Mar. 2008; Vol. 1, No. 1: 72-78.
- Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007 Sep-Oct;22(5):808-14.
Unsplinted implants retaining maxillary overdentures with partial palatal coverage: report of 5 consecutive cases.
Cavallaro JS Jr1, Tarnow DP.
It is believed that maxillary dental implants must be splinted when used to retain removable overdenture prostheses in order to maintain osseointegration. This paper presents clinical cases to demonstrate that contemporary implants can function in an unsplinted manner to retain maxillary removable overdentures with partial palatal coverage.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Five consecutive patients were treated using a specific surgical and prosthodontic protocol. Twenty-five textured-surface implants were placed to retain overdenture prostheses in five patients, with a minimum of 4 implants per patient. These patients were followed for 12 to 48 months postloading.
To date, none of the implants have lost osseointegration, and radiographic marginal bone levels are stable. Patients have been able to maintain soft tissue health around the unsplinted implants. The patients have verbally indicated that they are comfortable and that their maxillary overdentures function well.
This preliminary report presents 5 consecutive cases in which unsplinted implants maintained osseointegration when used to retain removable overdenture prostheses with limited palatal coverage. It appears that unsplinted maxillary implants can be used to retain a maxillary overdenture.
- Simplifying the divergence challenges of a combination root and implant partial denture attachment case.
Spectrum Dialogue, 2007; Vol. 6, No. 2: 90-94.
- Retention and load transfer characteristics of implant-retained auricular prostheses.
Williams BH, Ochiai KT, Baba T, Caputo AA.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. May/Jun. 2007; Vol. 22, No. 3:366-72.
- Photoelastic stress analysis of various retention mechanisms on 3-implant-retained mandibular overdentures.
Celik G, Uludag B.
Jour. Of Prosthetic Dent., Apr. 2007; Vol. 97, No.4: 229-235.
- Implant-retained overdentures.
Dental Lab Products, Mar. 2007: 30-31.
- Mandibular two-implant retained overdenture: prosthetic design and fabrication protocol.
Shor A et. al.
Compendium, Feb. 2007; Vol. 28, No. 2: 80-89.
- Contemporary treatment of mandibular edentulism.
Cooper L, Ingeborg De K, Chang K.
Inside Dentistry, Nov./Dec. 2006: 86-93.
- Simplifying divergence challenges of a combination root and implant overdenture attachment case.
Dentistry Today, Nov. 2006: 96-98.
- Stable implant overdentures.
Kosinski T, Owen M.
Dentistry Today, Nov. 2006: 92-94.
- Contemporary implant dentistry & removable prosthodontics.
Dental Towne, Sep. 2006: 76-82.
- Rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible: implant-supported overdentures.
Bernier J, Serota K.
Oral Health Journal, Aug. 2006.
- Conversion from bar-retained to attachment-retained implant overdenture.
Dent. Today, Jan. 2006: 66-70.
- Evaluation of stable retentive properties of overdenture attachments.
Rutkunas V, Mizutani H, Takahashi H.
Stomatologija. 2005; Vol. 7 No. 4:115-20.
- Locator attachment – newly available for bar.
Staubli P, Bagley D.
Spectrum, 2005: 64-66.
- Implant overdenture: expanding the horizons.
Spectrum, 2005: 12-16.
- Placement of an implant-stabilized complete denture: a case report.
PPAD 2005; Vol. 16, No. 8: 579-582.
- Retrofitting Locator attachments to an existing denture.
Contemp. Esthetics & Restorative Practice, Sep. 2005: 54-55.
- Rescuing a lost case.
Dental Products Report, Aug. 2005: 164-167.
- Providing an overdenture connection using a threaded Locator bar attachment.
Dental Lab Products, Feb. 2005: 14-15.
- Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant overdentures.
Chung KH, Chung CY, Cagna DR, Cronin RJ Jr.
J Prosthodont. Dec 2004; Vol. 13, No. 4:221-6.
- J Prosthet Dent. 2004 May;91(5):421-7.
Photoelastic analysis of the effect of palatal support on various implant-supported overdenture designs.
Ochiai KT1, Williams BH, Hojo S, Nishimura R, Caputo AA.
- 1Division of Advanced Prosthodontics, Biomaterials, and Hospital Dentistry, UCLA School of Dentistry, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:
The effect of palatal support on various types of implant-supported maxillary overdenture designs has not been sufficiently assessed.
The purpose of this study was to photoelastically evaluate the palatal support of 3 designs of maxillary implant-supported overdentures.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
A photoelastic model of an edentulous maxilla was fabricated with four 3.75 x 13-mm 3i implants. Three maxillaryoverdenture designs were fabricated: a splinted Hader bar incorporating 2 distal ERA attachments with anterior clips; non-splinted Zaag 4-mm direct abutments and attachments; and nonsplinted Locator 2-mm direct abutments and attachments. All restorative components and attachments were fitted and observed for passivity of fit and alignment. The overdentures were first tested with complete palatal coverage. Unilateral 25-lb loads were applied at the left and right first molars and the incisive papilla area. The photoelastic effects were monitored and recorded photographically. The palatal area was removed from the 3 overdentures and the loading regimens were repeated.
The highest stresses under central loading were seen with the splinted Hader bar and complete palatal coverage, followed by similar levels of stress with either Zaag or Locator attachments. After removal of the palate, the center load demonstrated greater differences between designs. The highest stresses were observed with the Hader bar, followed by the Zaag and then Locator attachments. Lack of palatal coverage demonstrated higher levels of stress around implants and visible supporting tissues. The unilateral load produced the highest stress for the splinted Hader bar, followed by Locator, and then Zaag.
Removal of the palatal support produced a greater effect and more concentrated stress difference for maxillary overdentures than differences between the attachment designs tested.
- Restoration of divergent implants with removable prosthesis and the locator attachment.
Kurtzman G, Schneider A.
Spectrum Mar./Apr. 2004: 33-38.
- Restorative implant options for the general dental practice.
Perio Implant 2004: 19.
- New options in prosthetic reconstruction.
Implant Realities 2004; Vol. II, Issue 3: 4-6.
- Treatment options for the edentulous mandible: clinical application of the two-implant overdenture.
Pract. Proced. Aesthet. Dent. 2004; Vol. 16, No.2: 105-112.
- Placement of an implant-stabilized complete denture: a case report.
PPAD, 2004; Vol. 16, No. 8: 579-582.
- The two-implant mandibular overdenture: a simple, predictable treatment alternative for the partially edentulous patient with a compromised dentition.
3i Clinical Sep. 2003; Vol. 3 Issue 2: 1-7.
- The locator attachment utilized for bar overdentures.
Kurtzman G et. at.
Spectrum Intl. IDS March 2003: 28-33
- The Locator attachment: a practical implant pearl for your overdenture patients.
Implant Realities 2003; Vol. II, No. 1: 29-31.
- The root-supported overdenture using the Locator overdenture attachment.
Gen Dent. Sep./Oct. 2002; Vol. No. 5:448-53; quiz 454-5.
- Restoration of divergent free-standing implants in the maxilla.
Schneider A. et. al.
J. Oral Impl. 2002; Vol. 28, No. 3: 113-116.
- Bar overdenture utilizing the Locator attachment.
Schneider A, Kurtzman G.
General Dent. Mar.-Apr. 2001: 210-214.
- A low-profile implant overdenture attachment: a case report.
Canadian J. Dent. Tech. IDS March 2001: 24-26.
- New CHAIRSIDE Soft Reline Material – When Patient Comfort Is ParamountApril 19, 2016 - 9:51 pm
- Achieve Impressive Results With ZEST Anchors New CHAIRSIDE® Customer Impression TraysApril 19, 2016 - 9:49 pm
- Introducing CHAIRSIDE® Block Out Material – Ideal For Blocking or Avoiding UndercutsApril 19, 2016 - 9:46 pm