Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 19, 2026
05:42
Dynamic Navigation for Dental Implant Placement
Published on: September 13, 2022
[Locator or ball attachment: a guide for clinical decision making].
Adrian E Büttel1, Nico M Bühler, Carlo P Marinello
1Klinik für Rekonstruktive Zahnmedizin und Myoarthropathien, Universitätskliniken für Zahnmedizin, Universität Basel, Schweiz. adrian.buettel@unibas.ch
Schweizer Monatsschrift Fur Zahnmedizin = Revue Mensuelle Suisse D'Odonto-Stomatologie = Rivista Mensile Svizzera Di Odontologia E Stomatologia
|October 27, 2009
Summary
Choosing overdenture attachments involves technical, clinical, and cost factors. Ball attachments offer hygiene and replaceability, while bars provide stability. The Locator presents a newer alternative for overdenture retention.
Area of Science:
- Dentistry
- Prosthodontics
- Biomaterials
Background:
- Overdenture attachments are crucial for retaining prostheses on natural teeth or implants.
- Selection criteria include technical aspects, clinical handling, adaptability, repairability, and cost.
- Established options like ball attachments and bars have documented clinical performance.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare ball attachments and the Locator attachment for overdenture retention.
- To evaluate technical and clinical aspects of these attachment systems.
Main Methods:
- Comparative analysis of ball attachments and the Locator attachment.
- Review of technical specifications and clinical handling characteristics.
Main Results:
- Ball attachments are prefabricated, easily replaceable, and offer hygienic benefits.
- Bars provide favorable stability for overdenture retention.
- The Locator is a newer, popular alternative with distinct technical and clinical profiles.
Conclusions:
- The choice between ball attachments, bars, and the Locator depends on specific clinical needs and priorities.
- Understanding the trade-offs in stability, hygiene, and ease of use is essential for optimal overdenture treatment planning.