| Literature DB >> 35621528 |
Adityakrisna Yoshi Putra Wigianto1, Yuichi Ishida1, Takashi Matsuda1, Takaharu Goto1, Megumi Watanabe1, Tetsuo Ichikawa1.
Abstract
Recently, a novel magnetic attachment with extremely low cost and high performance was developed. This article aims to introduce a novel magnetic attachment and to evaluate its basic eligibility for denture retention in clinical practice. The novel magnetic attachment system used in this study was the direct-bonding root-keeper-type Magteeth™ MT800 (MagneDesign, Nagoya, Japan). The retentive force without displacement (position 0) and after horizontal displacement to positions 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, and 3 mm were measured. The values relative to the retentive force without displacement were gradually decreased to 82.7 ± 16.3%, 68.8 ± 17.1%, 62.4 ± 15%, 47.2 ± 13.1%, 35.7 ± 9.9%, and 20.7 ± 6.5%, respectively. The retentive force and magnetic field strength did not change significantly after the load test (100 N load, 10,000 times). No new gap between the metal and resin was found in the root keeper- and magnet assembly-embedded blocks after the load test. Some scratches on magnetic assembly and root keeper surface, while no change in the resin texture after the load test were observed. Based on the findings of this preliminary study, this novel low-cost magnetic attachment exhibited favorable retention, strength, and durability for clinical use.Entities:
Keywords: dental magnet; denture attachment; denture retention; magnetic retention; overdenture
Year: 2022 PMID: 35621528 PMCID: PMC9139948 DOI: 10.3390/dj10050075
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Dent J (Basel) ISSN: 2304-6767
Figure 1Illustration of the novel magnetic attachment system.
Figure 2Structural differences between the novel magnetic attachment (a) and the conventional magnetic attachment (b).
Figure 3Experimental settings on the universal testing machine to evaluate the retentive force at displaced positions (a) and to perform the load test (b).
Figure 4Comparisons of retentive forces at displaced positions (means and standard deviations).
Figure 5Comparison of (a) retentive force and (b) magnetic field strength after load test (means and standard deviations). No change was observed.
Figure 6Surface evaluation of MA and RK between before (left) and after (right) load test. Upper: 50×, lower: 150× magnification.