New Mini Dental Implant Attachments versus O-ring Attachment after Cyclic Aging: Analysis of Retention Strength and Gap Space

Overdenture as a treatment modality for both partially and fully edentulous patients is costeffective and less expensive. The purpose of the present study was to examine the newly fabricated attachments by comparing them with conventional O-ring attachment in vitro in terms of retention force and cyclic aging resistance. A total of 150 samples were prepared and divided into five groups according to the materials used(O-ring attachment, Deflex M10 XR, Deflex Classic SR, Deflex Acrilato FD, and flexible acrylic resin). The retention force of different attachments was measured by a mini dental implant after three subsequent aging(0, 63, and 126) cycles in the circumstances similar to the oral environment. The gap space between the head of the implant and the inner surface of the attachments was detected. Two-way analysis of variance(ANOVA) analysis with multiple comparisons test was applied for statistical analysis. The results showed that Deflex M10 XR had the highest retention force and the lowest gap space after cyclic aging; in addition, by comparing the relative force reduction, the lowest values were obtained in the O-ring attachment and the highest values in the flexible acrylic resin attachment. The retention force measured after cyclic aging for the Deflex M10 XR attachment was greatly improved when compared with the O-ring attachment and other types of attachment materials; in addition, the Deflex M10 XR attachment exhibited the minimum gap space between the inner surface and the mini dental implant head. In conclusion, Deflex M10 XR has the ability to withstand weathering conditions and retains its durable and retentive properties after aging when compared with other attachments.

Comparison of Success Rate and Radiological Bone Loss in Patients with Mini-Implant versus Conventional-Sized Implant Removable Prostheses: A Meta-Analysis

Background: The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess whether mini-implants have added benefit in terms of implants success rate and average bone loss over conventional-sized implants after one year of follow-up. Methods: An electronic search of randomized clinical trials was conducted in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) and Web of Science for studies including complete or partial edentulous patients requiring two or four mini-implants or conventional/ standard-sized implants in the maxilla or mandible for implant-supported removable prostheses who completed 12 months of follow-up. Results: The search provided 194 unique articles which were screened for title and abstract. Screening generated 12 articles which went through full-text analysis using eligibility criteria, and 4 articles were included for meta-analysis. Meta-analysis of these studies indicated a non-significant difference in the success rate between the two interventions (OR = 1.69 [0.74, 3.85;p = 0.21]). Bone loss estimates resulted in a significant bone reduction (Mean Difference = -0.74 [-0.95, -0.53;p < 0.05]) in favor of two mini-implants when compared with two conventional-sized implants, but when compared four mini- with two conventional-sized implants, the estimates were non-significant (Mean Difference = -0.24 [-0.69, 0.20;p = 0.29]). Conclusion: The current evidence does not provide solid evidence of the benefits of one intervention over the other. More studies with follow-up times of 10 and more years are needed as current studies have described the short-term outcomes.