PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 6384053

Magnetic denture retention systems: inexpensive and efficient.

Abstract

A magnetic retention system has been used in more than 6000 complete and partial overdentures, sectional dentures and implant overdentures, with excellent clinical results and patient acceptability. For the overdenture application, decoronated, root-treated teeth are fitted with preformed or cast magnetisable alloy root elements, or 'keepers'. Following conventional denture construction, paired cobalt/samarium magnets in a special configuration are cured into the denture base so that with the denture inserted, the magnets grip the root elements with a retentive force of approximately 300 g per root. The paired magnet arrangement eliminates any external magnetic field and doubles the available retention. Magnetic retention has few of the problems encountered with other retention devices. It offers simplicity, low cost, self-adjustment, inherent stress-breaking, automatic repositioning after denture displacement, comparative freedom of lateral denture movement, reduces trauma to retained roots and eliminates the need for adjustment in service. For the sectional denture application, undesirable undercuts on the abutment teeth are used to provide passive, positive retention. The separate buccal and lingual sections are joined together by parallel pins fitting into matching tubes, assembly being maintained by magnetic attraction between a retention element in one section and a keeper in the other. Insertion and removal are more difficult than with a conventional denture but soft tissue coverage is minimal. There are no visible retainer arms and food traps are eliminated. Abutment tooth preparation is negligible, the laboratory procedures simple, and the treatment inexpensive and reversible. A clinical trial of magnetic overdenture retention in conjunction with osseointegrated titanium implants is now in progress. After 21 months acceptable clinical results have been obtained. An improved implant with an alumina core and a sintered hydroxyapatite coating is at present undergoing animal trials. Chemical bonding at the bone/implant interface is anticipated.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B R Gillings. 1984. Magnetic denture retention systems: inexpensive and efficient.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6384053/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Influence of attachment wear on retention of mandibular overdenture.

UNLABELLED: The aims of this study were: (i) to evaluate and compare retention of two-teeth (implant) supported mandibular overdenture with either stud or magnetic attachments during linear (axial) and rotational (paraxial) dislodgements; (ii) to compare retentive properties before and after wear simulation. The test group consisted of five magnetic and four stud overdenture attachments (n = 12 specimens for each attachment type). Retention in axial direction was evaluated on one-tooth (implant) model by measuring maximum retentive force (N) and range of retention (mm) during the linear dislodgement. Retention in the paraxial direction was evaluated on mandibular-overdenture model by measuring the maximum retentive force (N) during three types of rotational dislodgements - anterior, lateral and posterior. The minimum number of cycles required to simulate wear was determined by special wear test. Afterwards, the wear was simulated in the test group, and retention in axial and paraxial directions was measured again. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: one-way anova, Scheffe post hoc and paired-samples t-tests (P < 0.05). Initially, studs had higher retention (4-11 N) than magnets (4.5-6 N) in axial direction. After the wear simulation, it had decreased from 76% to 48% for some of the studs and had become similar to the retention of magnetic attachments. Magnets had lower retention range (0.2-0.3 mm) than studs (0.5-1.1 mm). Studs provided similar or higher retention in paraxial directions than magnetic attachments both before and after wear simulation. Retentive properties of magnets decreased mostly with posterior rotational dislodgement. Retentive properties of stud overdenture attachments were less constant.

Dental Abutments↗

Transitioning patients from teeth to implants.

One major obstacle to treatment with implants is the transitional phase between a tooth supported occlusion and an implant supported occlusion. This is of particular concern when a patient with a failing dentition has not worn a removable prosthesis before and is planning to have a reconstruction supported by implants.

Dental Abutments↗

Impression techniques for implant dentistry.

The object of making an impression in implant dentistry is to accurately relate an analogue of the implant or implant abutment to the other structures in the dental arch. This is affected by use of an impression coping which is attached to the implant or implant abutment. This impression coping is incorporated in an impression - much as a metal framework is 'picked up' in a remount impression for fixed prosthodontics. With implant copings the coping is usually attached to the implant or abutment with screws. The impression material used is usually an elastomeric impression material; the two types most widely used and shown to be the most appropriate are polyether and polyvinyl siloxane impression materials.

Dental Abutments↗