Premium
Mechanical Properties of Magnetic Attachments for Removable Prostheses on Teeth and Implants
Author(s) -
Boeckler Arne F.,
Morton Dean,
Ehring Carolin,
Setz Juergen M.
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
journal of prosthodontics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.902
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1532-849X
pISSN - 1059-941X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1532-849x.2008.00356.x
Subject(s) - materials science , abutment , universal testing machine , implant , dentistry , orthodontics , materials testing , magnet , biomedical engineering , composite material , mechanical engineering , structural engineering , medicine , engineering , surgery , ultimate tensile strength
Purpose: Magnetic attachments on teeth and implants may be used to improve stability, support, and retention of removable prostheses. Various forms of magnetic attachments are available, divided according to the design, the mechanical properties of the attachments, and the clinical indication. Recently developed attachment systems are small and promise improved retentive capacity, while existing magnetic attachments continue to be technologically modified and improved. This investigation reviewed and compared maximum retentive forces and characteristic curves for magnetic attachments indicated for use as root anchors and on implants. Materials and Methods: Twenty‐four samarium‐cobalt (SmCo) and neodym‐iron‐boron (NeFeB) magnetic attachments (12 tooth‐ and 12 implant‐borne) were evaluated. Specimens were delivered by the manufacturers or fabricated according to their instructions. Five magnet pairs of each product and each combination were tested 10 times in a calibrated universal testing machine using a nonmagnetic test device (s = 40 mm, v = 20 mm/min). Results were recorded electronically and compared to manufacturers' details. Results: Maximum retentive forces for root keepers ranged from 1.4 to 6.6 N. Maximum retentive forces for magnetic attachments on implants ranged from 0.7 to 5.8 N. After a distance of 0.1 mm, a complete reversed distribution of the different systems became obvious. The retentive force provided by the manufacturer was achieved in one implant abutment, with retentive force (as compared to those provided by the manufacturers) for root keepers ranging between 42.5% and 92.9% and for implant abutments between 43.0% and 99.4%. Conclusion: There were differences between magnetic attachments for both the initial retentive capabilities and the characteristic curves. Recently introduced products provided relatively high initial retentive forces despite their small size. The measured retentive forces and the manufacturer's information differed in the majority of magnetic systems evaluated.