Ball Attachment System Research Articles

Objective validity of an implant-retained overdenture with a ball attachment system after marginal mandibulectomy

Implant-retained overdentures are known to improve oral function, but the clinical impact on patients who have had mandibular resections is still debatable. We have treated 16 patients who had such resections for oral cancer and consequent loss of the alveolar ridge, with overdentures supported by osseointegrated implants and ball attachments. To quantify their functional improvement, we evaluated their maximum bite force and masticatory performance. Their function improved significantly, (from 77.5N - 365N, 371% increase in maximum bite force, p<0.001) and masticatory performance increased (from 2.5 - 7.7, 208%, p<0.0001) after the overdentures had been inserted. While individual changes in maximum bite force showed no significant correlation, those in masticatory performance correlated significantly, which suggests that the subjects with poor masticatory function are likely to benefit from retention of an implant. These results indicate that implant-retained overdentures are an effective way to rehabilitate patients after marginal mandibular resection.

Mandibular single-implant overdentures: preliminary results of a randomised-control trial on early loading with different implant diameters and attachment systems

To determine surgical and prosthodontic outcomes of mandibular single-implant overdentures, opposing complete maxillary dentures, using a wide diameter implant and large ball attachment system compared with different regular diameter implants with standard attachment systems. Thirty-six edentulous participants (mean age 68 years, SD 9.2) were randomly assigned into three treatment groups (n=12). A single implant was placed in the mandibular midline of participants to support an overdenture using a 6-week loading protocol. The control group received Southern regular implants and standard ball attachments. One group received Southern 8-mm-wide implants and large ball attachments. Another group received Neoss regular implants and Locator attachments. Parametric and non-parametric tests of a statistical software package (SPSS) were used to determine between groups differences in marginal bone loss, implant stability, implant, and prosthodontic success (P<0.05). Implant success after 1 year was 75% for Southern regular implant (control) group; and 100% for the Southern wide and Neoss regular implant groups (P=0.038). Mean marginal bone loss at 1 year was 0.19 mm (SD 0.39) without significant differences observed. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) at baseline was significantly lower for the Southern regular (control) group than the other two groups (P=0.001; P=0.009). At 1 year, no significant difference in implant stability was observed (mean ISQ 74.6, SD 6.1). The change in implant stability from baseline to 1 year was significant for the control group (P=0.025). Prosthodontic success was comparable between the groups but the maintenance (41 events overall, mean 1.2) was greater for the Locator and the standard ball attachments. Mandibular single-implant overdentures are a successful treatment option for older edentulous adults with early loading protocol using implants of different diameters and with different attachment systems.

A Quality-of-Life Comparison Between Self-Aligning and Ball Attachment Systems for 2-Implant–Retained Mandibular Overdentures

The aim of this study was to evaluate the self-aligning overdenture attachment system by comparing its oral health-related quality of life (OHRQL) with a traditionally used ball attachment system. In this randomized, within-subject crossover trial, 25 edentulous subjects each received 2 mandibular implants, and were then assigned to receive either self-aligning or traditional ball attachments. After 3months, all subjects were switched to the second attachment type. The OHRQL was evaluated for both of the treatments using the short form of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14). A subanalysis among subjects with below-average space available for attachment placement was also performed. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare differences between groups. Scores on the OHIP-14 physical disability domain were significantly better for the self-aligning attachment system (P = .049). Among subjects with below-average attachment space, functional limitation, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, and total OHIP-14, scores were significantly better for the self-aligning attachment system (P = .041, P = .047, P = .048, P = .026, and P = .005, respectively). The self-aligning attachment system for 2-implant-retained mandibular overdentures is equal or superior to traditional ball attachments in all domains of the OHIP-14.

The effect of maximum bite force on marginal bone loss of mini‐implants supporting a mandibular overdenture: a randomized controlled trial

To evaluate the effect of maximum bite force (mBF) on marginal bone loss (MBL) around mini-implants in edentulous patients wearing mandibular overdentures with two retention systems: ball and bar. Forty-five totally edentulous patients were selected from a public health center. All of them received two mini-implants (1.8 x 15 mm; Sendax) in the anterior mandible using a minimally invasive technique. A single randomization was performed to allocate the patients in two groups. Group I (n=22) received two single ball-type mini-implants and Group II (n=23) received two mini-implants splinted with a prefabricated bar. The mBF was recorded using a press-sensitive sheet Dental Prescale (Fuji) and MBL using standardized radiographs of each mini-implant at the baseline and 5, 7, 10, and 15 months after surgery; the values were compared between groups. Two members of Group I failed to complete the study, decreasing the number of participants to 20. There was no relationship between the mBF and the MBL of the mini-implants (Spearman's rhor(s)=0.147; P=0.378). At the 15-month follow-up, the average mBF for Group I (ball) was 247.53 +/- 132.91 N and that of Group II (bar) only 203.23 +/- 76.85 N (Mann-Whitney test; P=0.586). The MBL values were also higher for Group I (1.40 +/- 1.02 mm) than Group II (0.84 +/- 0.66 mm) during the entire 15-month follow-up period (Mann-Whitney test; P=0.077). No relationship was found between mBF and MBL for patients wearing overdentures retained on mini-implants using bar or ball attachment systems.

Obturator for Rehabilitation of Cleft Palate With Implant-Supported Retention System

Surgical reconstruction and prosthetic obturation are alternatives for the treatment of cleft in the soft palate. The present case reports the rehabilitation of a patient presenting cleft palate with obturator prosthesis associated with implant-supported retention system. The use of ball attachment system improved speech, masticatory efficiency, swallowing, and social behavior of the patient.

A systematic review of implant‐supported maxillary overdentures after a mean observation period of at least 1 year

The aim of the present systematic review of implant-supported maxillary overdentures was to assess the survival of implants, survival of maxillary overdentures and the condition of surrounding hard and soft tissues after a mean observation period of at least 1 year. MEDLINE (1950-August 2009), EMBASE (1966-August 2009) and CENTRAL (1800-August 2009) were searched to identify eligible studies. Two reviewers independently assessed the articles. Out of 147 primarily selected articles, 31 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis showed an implant survival rate (SR) of 98.2% per year in case of six implants and a bar anchorage. In case of four implants and a bar anchorage, the implant SR was 96.3% per person. In case of four implants and a ball anchorage, the implant SR was 95.2% per year. In all three treatment options, the SR of the implants is more than 95%. The studies included reveal that a maxillary overdenture supported by six dental implants, which are connected with a bar, is the most successful treatment regarding survival of both the implants and overdenture. Second in line is the treatment option with four implants and a bar. The treatment option with four or less implants and a ball attachment system is the least successful.

Photoelastic stress analysis of various retention mechanisms on 3-implant-retained mandibular overdentures

There are various stress transfer studies of 2- or 4-implant-retained mandibular overdenture designs. However, the influence of various types of attachments and implant inclination on stress distribution of 3-implant-retained mandibular overdenture designs has not been sufficiently assessed. The purpose of this study was to compare the load transfer characteristics of 4 attachment systems for 3-implant-retained mandibular overdenture designs for vertically oriented and inclined implants. Two photoelastic mandibular models were fabricated having 3 screw-type implants (3.7 x 14 mm with 4.8-mm diameter abutment platform) embedded in the interforaminal region. In the first model, the implants were parallel to each other and vertically oriented. In the second model, 1 implant in the midline was vertically oriented, and the other 2 implants were positioned 20 degrees divergent from the center implant. Four retention mechanisms were studied for each model--the Locator, Swissplus ball, Bredent bar, and Bredent bar-ball. The bar design connected the 3 implants, and the bar-ball design used the bar in a similar fashion but additionally incorporated distally placed ball attachments. A vertical force of 135 N was applied unilaterally to the central fossa of the right first molar. The resultant stresses that developed in the supporting structure were monitored photoelastically and recorded photographically. For the splinted and unsplinted 3-implant-retained overdenture designs evaluated, moderate and low level stresses were observed with different attachment systems. For both the vertically oriented and inclined implants, the bar-ball attachment system produced the lowest stress level. For vertical and inclined implant designs, lowest stress was transferred to all implants with the bar-ball attachment system, while moderate stresses were observed in implants on the loaded side with unsplinted attachment systems. The highest stress level observed with all attachment systems was moderate. For the vertical implant design, the observed stresses were distributed to all implants except with the ball attachment system, which demonstrated little discernible stresses on the non-loaded side implant.