+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Patient preference and satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or locator attachments: a crossover clinical trial



Patient preference and satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or locator attachments: a crossover clinical trial



International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 27(6): 1560-1568



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. 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<.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.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 054888937

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 23189311


Related references

Patient satisfaction and preference with magnet, bar-clip, and ball-socket retained mandibular implant overdentures: a cross-over clinical trial. International Journal of Prosthodontics 18(2): 99-105, 2005

A clinical trial of patient satisfaction and prosthodontic needs with ball and bar attachments for implant-retained complete overdentures: three-year results. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 93(1): 28-37, 2005

A Clinical Trial of Patient Satisfaction and Prosthodontic Needs With Ball and Bar Attachments for Implant-Retained Complete Overdentures: Three-Year Results. Yearbook of Dentistry 2006: 134-135, 2006

Mandibular Denture Base Deformation with Locator and Ball Attachments of Implant-Retained Overdentures. Journal of Prosthodontics 25(8): 656-664, 2016

Mandibular overdentures retained by two implants: 10-year results from a crossover clinical trial comparing ball-socket and bar-clip attachments. International Journal of Prosthodontics 23(4): 310-317, 2010

Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or bar attachments: a randomized prospective 5-year study. International Journal of Prosthodontics 13(2): 125-130, 2000

Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or telescopic crown attachments: a 3-year prospective study. International Journal of Prosthodontics 19(2): 164-170, 2006

Using Bar and Ball Attachments in Maxillary and Mandibular Implant-Supported Overdentures in a Patient with Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma Associated with Microstomia: A Clinical Report. International Journal of Prosthodontics 30(1): 66-67, 2017

Complications associated with the ball, bar and Locator attachments for implant-supported overdentures. Medicina Oral Patologia Oral y Cirugia Bucal 16(7): E953, 2011

Retention of implant-supported overdentures at different implant angulations: comparing Locator and ball attachments. Clinical Oral Implants Research 28(11): 1406-1410, 2017

Prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction with resilient liner and clip attachments for bar- and implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a 3-year randomized clinical study. International Journal of Prosthodontics 25(2): 148-156, 2012

Peri-implant strain around mesially inclined two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures with Locator attachments. Journal of Oral Science 59(4): 483-490, 2017

Patient satisfaction with implant-retained mandibular overdentures: A comparison with new complete dentures not retained by implants: A multicentre randomized clinical trial. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 33(5): 283-288, 1995

Implant overdentures: bar versus ball attachment for mandibular implant supported overdentures--a randomised clinical trial. Sadj 59(1): 28-29, 2004

Patient satisfaction and masticatory efficiency of single implant-retained mandibular overdentures using the stud and magnetic attachments. Journal of Dentistry 40(11): 1018-1023, 2012