Baltic Dental and Maxillofacial Journal
Main page Back issues Editorial board Information

September, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 3



Dental Implant Stability at Stage I and II Surgery as Measured Using Resonance Frequency Analysis
67 - 72

The Ameloblastous Potentiality of Odontogenous Epithelium Demonstrated in Tissue Culture
73 - 76

Vertical Root Fractures in Endodontically Treated Teeth: A Clinical Survey
77 - 80


The Human Masticatory System From A Biomechanical Perspective: A Review
81 - 84


Retentive and Stabilizing Properties of Stud and Magnetic Attachments Retaining Mandibular Overdenture. An in vitro Study
85 - 90

Accuracy of Traditional Clinical Examination in Combination with 3-D Computerized Axiography for Diagnosing Anterior Disk Displacement with Reduction
91 - 93

© 2004 Stomatologija

Stomatologija 2004; 6 (3): 85-90 847 KB

Retentive and Stabilizing Properties of Stud and Magnetic Attachments Retaining Mandibular Overdenture. An in vitro Study

Vygandas Rutkunas, Hiroshi Mizutani


Objectives: To evaluate and compare retentive and stabilizing properties of stud (ERA Overdenture (orange and white), Locator Root (pink) and OP anchor # 4) and magnetic attachments (Hyperslim 4513, Hyperslim 4013, Magfit EX600W, Magnedisc 500 and Magfit-RK) by measuring maximum retentive force and retentive energy during linear and rotational dislodgments.

Material and methods: Twelve specimens of each type of attachment were used. Linear and 3 types of rotational (anterior, lateral and posterior) dislodgements were performed on one-tooth and mandible-overdenture models, respectively. For each type of dislodgement10 measurements were recorded by universal testing machine (AGS-H, Shimadzu Co., Kyoto, Japan) with 50 mm/min cross head speed. Statistical analysis: one-way ANOVA and Scheffe post-hoc tests (P<0.05).

Results: Studs provided higher retention and stability than magnetic attachments. As for rotational dislodgements maximum retentive force of magnetic attachments decreased in following order – anterior > lateral > posterior; whereas of studs – posterior > anterior > lateral. Magnetic attachments had considerably lower retentive energy values for all types of dislodgements.

Conclusions: Retentive properties depend on types of attachment and dislodgment. Stud attachments provide stronger retentive and stabilizing forces than magnetic attachments with all types of dislodgements. Constant retentive properties and low retentive energy of magnetic attachments could assist abutment preservation. Further studies are necessary to clarify range of retention and fatigue behavior of overdenture attachments. Attachments with proper retentive and stabilizing properties should be selected in particular clinical situation.

Key words: overdenture, studs, magnets, retention, stability.

Received: 02 09 2004

Accepted for publishing: 20 09 2004

Vygandas Rutkunas - D.D.S., Center of Prosthodontics, Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.

Hiroshi Mizutani - D.D.S., PhD, Department of removable prosthodontics, Graduate School, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.

Address correspondence to Vygandas Rutkunas, Zalgirio str. 115, 08217 Vilnius, Lithuania. E-mail: