@article{BrandtLauerFehrenzetal.2021,
  author    = {Brandt, Silvia and Lauer, Hans-Christoph and Fehrenz, Michael and G{\"u}th, Jan-Frederik and Romanos, Georgios and Winter, Anna},
  title     = {Ball versus Locator\(^®\) attachments: a retrospective study on prosthetic maintenance and effect on oral-health-related quality of life},
  series = {Materials},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Materials},
  number    = {4},
  issn      = {1996-1944},
  doi       = {10.3390/ma14041051},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-228909},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Locator\(^®\) and ball attachments are well-established systems to attach overdentures to two inter-foraminal implants. This study aimed to evaluate differences between the two systems regarding prosthetic maintenance and patients' oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). Dental records of patients with a mandibular implant-retained overdenture were retrospectively analyzed. Prosthetic maintenance measures involving the denture suprastructure and attachment matrix and patrix were analyzed. Furthermore, the Oral Health Impact Profile-G14 (OHIP-G14) was used to evaluate OHRQoL. Results were analyzed by means of Kaplan-Meier analysis and Student's t- and log-rank tests. The records of 122 patients were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed a significant difference between ball attachments (Group B; n patients = 47) and Locator\(^®\) attachments (Group L; n patients = 75) regarding the occurrence of denture fractures (p < 0.001) and events affecting the matrix (p = 0.028) and patrix (p = 0.030). Group L had a significantly lower total OHIP-G14 score than Group B (p = 0.002). The most common maintenance events were matrix-related and denture relining for both attachment systems. Group B required more maintenance measures than Group L. Moreover, patients in Group L had better OHRQoL than patients in Group B.},
  language  = {en}
}