In vitro measurement of the retention force of two stud attachment systems during cyclic load.

PURPOSE

To investigate the retentive behavior of the Locator legacy and Novaloc attachment systems with different retention inserts both within and across systems under cyclic load.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three retention inserts of each system (green, yellow, and white for Novaloc; green, orange, and red inserts for extended range for legacy Locator) were tested on abutments of both systems with a sample number of 10 per force and 10,000 cycles of insertion and removal. The loading was applied in the axial direction of the abutments, which were placed in artificial saliva. The retention force was measured in each cycle. The results were compared with the manufacturer's specifications and evaluated for a simulated period of use of 10 years. Characteristic time constants were determined, and subsequently, the two systems were compared regarding their wear behavior.

RESULTS

The manufacturer's specifications could only be confirmed for the green Novaloc retention insert on a Novaloc abutment (t-test: p = 0.50); for all other inserts, the baseline exceeded the manufacturer's specifications by 30%-75% (Novaloc; t-test: p < 0.001) and 75%-550% (Locator; t-test: p < 0.001). After 10,000 cycles performed, the manufacturer's specifications were confirmed on a Novaloc abutment for the white Novaloc retention insert (t-test: p = 0.86) and on a Locator abutment for the green Novaloc retention insert (t-test: p = 0.32). Both systems lost retention force during the experiment. Overall, Novaloc inserts on both abutments showed less wear (decrease to 56%-85% of initial force) and a slower decrease in retention force compared to Locator inserts (decrease to 6%-31% of initial force).

CONCLUSIONS

In both systems, wear leads to a varying loss of retention; therefore, regular checks with possible replacement of the inserts are necessary in clinical use. Novaloc attachments seem to be more resistant to the loss of retention than Locator attachments. A cross-combination may be clinically useful in some cases.