Maximum dislodging forces of implant overdenture stud attachments.

PURPOSE The aim of this study was to compare the retention and stability of the Nobel Biocare standard ball (NBS), Nobel Biocare 2.25-mm-diameter ball (NB2), Zest Anchor (ZA), Zest Anchor Advanced Generation (ZAAG), Sterngold ERA orange (SEO), and Sterngold ERA white (SEW) attachments on an implant-retained overdenture model. MATERIALS AND METHODS The attachments were tested using 2 permanently placed Brånemark System implants on a test model that was attached to an Instron machine (crosshead speed 50.8 mm/minute). Each attachment had one part embedded in a denture-like housing and the other part screwed into the implants. Dislodging tensile forces were applied to the housings in 3 directions simulating function: vertical, oblique, and anterior-posterior. Eight tests were done in 3 directions with 6 samples of each attachment. The dislodging forces generated measurements of the peak load (maximum dislodging force). A 1-way analysis of variance followed by the Tukey studentized range test was used to determine groups that were significantly different. All tests for significance were carried out at the .05 level of significance. RESULTS Results showed the ZAAG attachment to be the most retentive for the peak load measurement when subjected to vertically directed forces, with mean values and standard deviations of 37.2 +/- 5.5 N. The next most retentive attachment was the NBS, followed by the SEO, NB2, SEW, and ZA. For obliquely directed forces, the ZAAG attachment was the most retentive, with mean values and standard deviations of 27.2 +/- 4.2 N. The next most retentive was the NBS, followed by the NB2, SEO, ZA, and SEW. For anterior-posteriorly directed forces, results showed the NBS had the highest measured retentive force, with mean values and standard deviations of 34.6 +/- 18.8 N, but this was not statistically different from the NB2 and ZAAG; this was followed by the SEO, SEW, and ZA. DISCUSSION There has been a marked resurgence in the treatment of patients with overdentures using implant attachments as retentive devices. The maximum force developed (a measure of retention) as the implant stud attachments were resisting removal from the implant abutments was determined. CONCLUSIONS Based on the present study, the clinician may be able to make empirical decisions on attachment selection, depending on the amount of retention desired and the specific clinical situation.