de Sousa Andréa Alves, Mattos Beatriz Silva Câmara
Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Prosthesis and Traumatology, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Brazil.
Int J Prosthodont. 2008 May-Jun;21(3):233-6.
Retention systems for implant-retained auricular prostheses using either bar-clip attachments with 2 or 3 clips or retention with 2 or 3 magnets were wear tested (insertion and removal cycles) to simulate clinical periods of use. Measurements were taken at intervals of 540 cycles, which represents a period of use of approximately 6 months, for up to 3,240 cycles. Assessments of retentive force were carried out before, during, and after the wear test. Statistical analysis indicated that the bar-clip systems provided higher retention than the magnetic systems. The bar-clip attachment with 2 clips showed a significant loss of retentive force after wear testing (P < .05), suggesting lower durability and shorter clinical life. The retention provided by the bar-clip attachment with 3 clips remained stronger than that provided by all other systems tested. At the end of the wear test, the magnetic systems showed very little loss of retention but were still less retentive than the bar-clip systems, suggesting higher durability under clinical simulation despite the lower retention initially provided.
对使用带有2个或3个夹子的杆夹附件或2个或3个磁体进行固位的种植体固位耳假体固位系统进行了磨损测试（插入和取出循环），以模拟临床使用期。每隔540个循环进行测量，这代表大约6个月的使用期，最多进行3240个循环。在磨损测试前、测试期间和测试后对固位力进行评估。统计分析表明，杆夹系统比磁体系统提供更高的固位力。带有2个夹子的杆夹附件在磨损测试后显示出显著的固位力损失（P < 0.05），表明耐久性较低且临床使用寿命较短。带有3个夹子的杆夹附件提供的固位力仍然比所有其他测试系统更强。在磨损测试结束时，磁体系统显示出非常小的固位力损失，但仍比杆夹系统的固位力小，这表明尽管最初提供的固位力较低，但在临床模拟下耐久性更高。
