Comparison of magnetic attachment and ball-cap attachment for retained mandibular over-denture

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2013.51.010

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Precision attachment has been widely used in complete denture because of its strong retention, good appearance, comfort and durability. Among them, magnetic attachment and ball-cap attachment are commonly applied for mandibular complete denture.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effects of magnetic attachment, ball-cap attachment and traditional clasp retainer used in the mandibular removable partial denture.
METHODS: A total of 45 patients with dentition defects were included in this study, they were treated with magnetic attachment, ball-cap attachment and traditional clasp retention of mandibular removable partial denture. Fifteen patients received one means. The satisfaction of patients and the periodontal health of abutments were observed after 3 years.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Comparison of the patient satisfaction showed that, the aesthetics, retention conditions, masticatory function and comfort in magnetic attachment group were significantly better than traditional clasp retention group (P < 0.05). The aesthetics and comfort in ball-cap attachment group were also better than traditional clasp retention group (P < 0.05). There were significant differences on the retention conditions and comfort between magnetic attachment group and ball-cap attachment group (P < 0.05). Gingival index was the highest in magnetic attachment group, then in ball-cap attachment group, and the lowest in traditional clasp retention group (P < 0.05). The abutment tooth mobility degree was the lowest in magnetic attachment group, then in ball-cap attachment group, and the highest in traditional clasp retention group (P < 0.05). The periodontal pocket depth in magnetic attachment group and ball-cap attachment group was lower than that in traditional clasp retention group (P < 0.05). The alveolar bone height was the highest in magnetic attachment group, then in ball-cap attachment group, and the lowest in traditional clasp retention group (P < 0.05). Experimental findings indicate that, precision attachment over-denture retention superior to traditional clasp removable partial denture in mandibular denture repairing. Magnetic attachment can provide better retention power and better protect the health of periodontal tissue compared with ball-cap attachment.

中国组织工程研究杂志出版内容重点：生物材料；骨生物材料; 口腔生物材料; 纳米材料; 缓释材料; 材料相容性；组织工程

全文链接：

Key words: biocompatible materials, precision attachment, denture, dental clasp

CLC Number:

R318

Yao Xi, Li Yun-sheng, Dai Yong-yu. Comparison of magnetic attachment and ball-cap attachment for retained mandibular over-denture[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2013, 17(51): 8841-8848.

Figures/Tables 4

Satisfaction survey After precision attachment of overdenture restoration, patients were highly satisfied in the aesthetics, denture retention, chewing function and comfort compared with traditional clasp retention of removable partial denture. (1) Aesthetics: There were significant differences between magnetic attachment group and control group (χ2=14.892, P=0), and between ball-cap attachment group and control group (χ2=13.871, P=0). This evidence suggested that, the appearance of two precision attachments was better than clasp retainer. No difference was significant between magnetic attachment group and ball-cap attachment group (χ2= 2.069, P=0.246). (2) Retention: There were significant differences between magnetic attachment group and control group (χ2=12.273, P=0), which indicated that magnetic attachment was better than traditional clasp retainer in the denture retention. There was no significant difference between ball-cap attachment group and control group (χ2=2.584, P=0.180), and between magnetic attachment group and ball-cap attachment group (χ2=4.320, P=0.040). This evidence suggested that patients in magnetic attachment group and ball-cap attachment group were satisfied in the retention. (3) Chewing function: There were significant differences between magnetic attachment group and control group (χ2=12.273, P=0), which indicated that magnetic attachment was better than traditional clasp retainer in the chewing function. There was no significant difference between ball-cap attachment group and control group (χ2=3.590, P=0.103), and between magnetic attachment group and ball-cap attachment group (χ2=3.268, P=0.073). The traditional clasp retention group and magnetic attachment group showed no significant difference compared with ball-cap attachment group. (4) Comfort: There were significant differences between magnetic attachment group and control group (χ2=21.818, P=0), and between ball-cap attachment group and control group (χ2=8.864, P=0.006), suggesting that two precision attachments were more comfortable than clasp retainer. No difference was significant between magnetic attachment group and ball-cap attachment group (χ2=5.455, P=0.026), suggesting that the comfort was more apparent in magnetic attachment and ball-cap attachment group (Table 2). Periodontal health Gingival index and teeth mobility The gingival health in magnetic attachment group was better than ball-cap attachment group (P=0.006); and two attachment groups were better than control group (P=0). The abutment tooth mobility in magnetic attachment group was lower than ball-cap attachment group (P=0); two attachment groups were both lower than control group (P=0; Table 3)."

References

[1]Zhu HW. Clinical effect of study Ball-cap attachments in the rehabilitation of dentition free deletion based on the treatment of 37 patients suffering from severe periodontal disease. Zhongguo Shiyong Kouqiangke Zazhi. 2011;4(7): 433-434.

[2]Boeckler AF, Morton D, Ehring C. Mechanical properties of magnetic attachments for removable prostheses on teeth and implants. J Prosthodont. 2008;17(8):608-615.

[3]Zinner ID, Miller RD, Panno FV. Clinical management of abutments with intracoronal attachments. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;67(6):761.

[4]State Council of the People’s Republic of China. Administrative Regulations on Medical Institution. 1994-09-01.

[5]Cao CF. Periodontology. Beijing: Renmin Weisheng Chubanshe. 2001:87,90,94.

[6]Liu W. Effect observation of the curative effect of magnetic attachment in mandibular denture. Xiandai Yiyao Weisheng. 2010;26(6):849-850.

[7]Jiang Y, Liu HC, Li HB, et al. Application of single complete overdenture with magnetic attachments in the elderly. Kouqiang Hemian Xiufuxue Zazhi. 2012;13(2):79-82.

[8]Wu XX, Zhang XM, Zhang Y, et al. Clinical application of Magnetic attachment in restoration of removable partial denture. Zhonghua Laonian Kouqiang Yixue Zazhi. 2009; 7(1):39-41.

[9]Wang PZ, Xia L, Wang GP, et al. Clinical effects of complete mandibular overdenture with magnetic attachments. Kouqiang Hemian Xiufuxue Zazhi. 2005;6(2):121-123.

[10]Wu LJ, Wang X, Zhang GY. Clinical research of complete mandibular overdentures with magnetic attachments. Kouqiang Yixue. 2010;30(2):103-105.

[11]Vere J, Deans RF. Tooth-supported, magnet-retained overdentures: a review. Dent Update. 2009;36(5):305-308, 310.

[12]Zheng XJ, Wei HW, Huang JJ. Magnetic precision attachment in mandibular denture in the coverage application. Shiyong Linchuang Yixue. 2010;11(6): 90-91.

[13]Zhu S. Clinical observation of body overdenture elderly edentulous magnetic attachment. Kouqiang Yixue. 2010;30(9):571-572.

[14]Tsuchida F, Suminaga Y, Takishin N, et al. A new retainer using magnetic attachment.Nihon Hotetsu Shika Gakkai Zasshi. 2008;52(4):559-561.

[15]Preiskel HW, Preiskel A. Precision attachments for the 21st century.Dent Update. 2009;36(4):221-224, 226-227.

[16]Zeng D, Jiao LP, Liu G, et al. Clinical evaluation of magnetic attachment retained over-denture and traditional removable partial denture. Kouqiang Hemian Xiufuxue Zazhi. 2010; 3(11):84-86.

[17]Zeng D, Jiao LP, Liu G, et al. Clinical observation of magnetic attachment overdenture restoration for patients with advanced periodontitis. Zhonghua Laonian Kouqiang Yixue Zazhi. 2010;8(2):88-92.

[18]Liu LY, Jiang T, Feng HL. Fatigue test of retention force of magnetic attachment and stud-type attachment. Shiyong Kouqiang Yixue Zazhi. 2008;24(5):635-638.

[19]Kuang H, Wang H, Huang XH, et al. Magnetic attachment for observation of the elderly's dentition defect repair effect. Gannan Yixueyuan Xuebao. 2012;32(2):218-219.

[20]Xiong YR, Feng D, Pang JL. Clinical application of magnetic attachments in complete overdentures in elder patients. Zhongguo Zuzhi Gongcheng Yanjiu. 2012; 16(12):2273-2276.

[21]Li MJ, Liu AG. Clinical application and common problems of magnetic attachment of overdenture. Gguangdong Yabing Fangzhi. 2010;18(8):443-446.

[22]Zhong AX, Pan XB, Peng LH, et al. Clinical application of SD ball attachment dentures. Guangxi Yike Daxue Xuebao. 2008;25(6):904-905.

[23]Deng SN. Comparative study of masticatory efficiency between attachment dentures and clasp removable partial dentures. Xiandai Yiyao Weisheng. 2008;24(10): 1459-1461.

[24]Saito M, Miura Y, Notaniet K, et al. Stress distribution of abutments and base displacement with precision attachment- and telescopic crown-retained removable partial dentures. J oral Rehabil. 2003;30(5):482-487.