Ball versus Locator\(^®\) attachments: a retrospective study on prosthetic maintenance and effect on oral-health-related quality of life

Please always quote using this URN: urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-228909
  • Locator\(^®\) and ball attachments are well-established systems to attach overdentures to two inter-foraminal implants. This study aimed to evaluate differences between the two systems regarding prosthetic maintenance and patients’ oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). Dental records of patients with a mandibular implant-retained overdenture were retrospectively analyzed. Prosthetic maintenance measures involving the denture suprastructure and attachment matrix and patrix were analyzed. Furthermore, the Oral Health Impact Profile-G14Locator\(^®\) and ball attachments are well-established systems to attach overdentures to two inter-foraminal implants. This study aimed to evaluate differences between the two systems regarding prosthetic maintenance and patients’ oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). Dental records of patients with a mandibular implant-retained overdenture were retrospectively analyzed. Prosthetic maintenance measures involving the denture suprastructure and attachment matrix and patrix were analyzed. Furthermore, the Oral Health Impact Profile-G14 (OHIP-G14) was used to evaluate OHRQoL. Results were analyzed by means of Kaplan–Meier analysis and Student’s t- and log-rank tests. The records of 122 patients were evaluated. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis revealed a significant difference between ball attachments (Group B; n patients = 47) and Locator\(^®\) attachments (Group L; n patients = 75) regarding the occurrence of denture fractures (p < 0.001) and events affecting the matrix (p = 0.028) and patrix (p = 0.030). Group L had a significantly lower total OHIP-G14 score than Group B (p = 0.002). The most common maintenance events were matrix-related and denture relining for both attachment systems. Group B required more maintenance measures than Group L. Moreover, patients in Group L had better OHRQoL than patients in Group B.show moreshow less

Download full text files

Export metadata

Additional Services

Share in Twitter Search Google Scholar Statistics
Metadaten
Author: Silvia Brandt, Hans-Christoph Lauer, Michael Fehrenz, Jan-Frederik Güth, Georgios Romanos, Anna Winter
URN:urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-228909
Document Type:Journal article
Faculties:Medizinische Fakultät / Poliklinik für Zahnärztliche Prothetik
Language:English
Parent Title (English):Materials
ISSN:1996-1944
Year of Completion:2021
Volume:14
Issue:4
Article Number:1051
Source:Materials (2021) 14:4, 1051. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14041051
DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14041051
Dewey Decimal Classification:6 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften / 61 Medizin und Gesundheit / 610 Medizin und Gesundheit
Tag:OHIP-G14; OHRQoL; attachment; ball; locator; overdenture
Release Date:2022/08/08
Date of first Publication:2021/02/23
Licence (German):License LogoCC BY: Creative-Commons-Lizenz: Namensnennung 4.0 International