This article presents a comparison between different attachment systems used to retain and support maxillary and mandibular overdentures in completely edentulous patients. A literature review based on a MEDLINE search limited to English-language articles published from 1988 to the present was performed, and a large number of attachments available in the dental market were reviewed with regard to several factors, including: (1) implant survival rate, (2) marginal bone loss, (3) soft tissue complications, (4) retention, (5) stress distri-bution, (6) space requirements, (7) maintenance complications, and (8) patient satisfaction. These factors are considered essential for the successful outcome and good long-term prognosis of the prostheses. Selection criteria previously published in the literature are discussed as well. Product names and manufacturers are mentioned only if related to attachment systems, as they are cited in the original articles.
*Former postgraduate prosthodontics resident, Tufts University, School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA; private practice limited to Prosthodontics, Athens, Greece.
†Visiting Assistant Professor, Division of Graduate and Postgraduate Prosthodontics, Tufts University, School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA; Clinical Associate, Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece; Private practice limited to Prosthodontics, Thessaloniki, Greece.
‡Associate Professor, Associate Director of Graduate and Postgraduate Prosthodontics, Tufts University, School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA.
§Professor, Director of Graduate and Postgraduate Prosthodontics, Tufts University, School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA.
Reprint requests and correspondence to:
Konstantinos Michalakis, DDS, PhD; 3, Greg. Palama str; Thessaloniki 546 22, Greece; Tel: (30) 2310-285-249; Fax: (30) 2310-272-228; E-mail: email@example.com