Comparative evaluation of retentive capacity of three different attachment systems for implant retained overdentures: An in vitro study

Figure 1 Wax models. A: Ball/O-ring attachment; B: Locator attachment system; C: Equator attachment system.

Figure 2 Attachments. A: Ball/O-ring attachment; B: Locator attachment system; C: Equator attachment system.

Figure 3 Attachment assembly. A: Ball/O-ring attachment; B: Locator attachment system; C: Equator attachment system.

Figure 4 Mandibular dentures fabricated in a conventional manner using heat-cured acrylic resin.

Figure 5 Acrylic resin overdenture. A: O-ring housing for ball attachment; B: Equator metallic housing and nylon insert; C: Locator metallic housing and male insert.

Figure 6 Mandibular overdenture models. A: O-ring housing for ball attachments; B: Equator metallic housing and nylon insert; C: Locator metallic housing and male insert.

Figure 7 Mean values. A: Mean values of the retentive capacity of three attachment systems at cycle 1; B: Mean values of the retentive capacity of three attachment systems at cycle 7500; C: Mean values of the retentive capacity of three attachment systems at cycle 15000.

Figure 8 Kruskal-Wallis test results (P < 0. 05) and mean values.