Friedrichsen Momme, Dirksen Dieter, Runte Christoph
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
J Prosthodont. 2024 Feb;33(2):164-170. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13665. Epub 2023 Mar 8.
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.
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.
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).
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.
研究Locator传统型和Novaloc附着系统在不同固位嵌体情况下，在循环载荷下系统内部及跨系统的固位行为。
对每个系统的三种固位嵌体（Novaloc的绿色、黄色和白色；传统Locator扩展范围的绿色、橙色和红色嵌体）在两种系统的基台上进行测试，每种力的样本数量为10个，插入和取出循环10000次。加载沿基台的轴向方向施加，基台置于人工唾液中。在每个循环中测量固位力。将结果与制造商的规格进行比较，并针对10年的模拟使用期进行评估。确定特征时间常数，随后比较两种系统的磨损行为。
仅在Novaloc基台上的绿色Novaloc固位嵌体符合制造商的规格（t检验：p = 0.50）；对于所有其他嵌体，基线超出制造商规格30%-75%（Novaloc；t检验：p < 0.001）和75%-550%（Locator；t检验：p < 0.001）。在进行10000次循环后，在Novaloc基台上白色Novaloc固位嵌体（t检验：p = 0.86）以及在Locator基台上绿色Novaloc固位嵌体（t检验：p = 0.32）符合制造商的规格。在实验过程中，两种系统的固位力均有所损失。总体而言，与Locator嵌体相比，两种基台上的Novaloc嵌体磨损较少（降至初始力的56%-85%）且固位力下降较慢（降至初始力的6%-31%）。
在两种系统中，磨损都会导致固位力不同程度的丧失；因此，在临床使用中需要定期检查并可能更换嵌体。Novaloc附着体似乎比Locator附着体更能抵抗固位力的丧失。在某些情况下，交叉组合在临床上可能有用。
