Complications and Maintenance of Mandibular Two-implant Overdentures: A 3-year Pilot Randomized Clinical Study of Bar–Locator Versus Bar–Ball Attachments

Objective: This 3-year pilot randomized clinical study aimed to compare prosthetic complications and maintenance requirements of mandibular two-implant overdentures retained by bar-locator and bar-ball attachment systems. Materials and Methods: = 5) attachment systems. All participants received new complete dentures before implant placement. Two implants were inserted in the inter-foraminal region and restored with the assigned bar-retained attachment. Prosthetic complications and maintenance events were recorded during scheduled follow-up visits over 3 years. Evaluated outcomes included retentive component wear, attachment separation, screw loosening, denture tooth and base complications, opposing prosthesis fractures, and relining requirements. Statistical Analysis: Descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact test, independent samples t-tests, effect sizes, and confidence intervals were used for analysis, with emphasis placed on estimation rather than formal hypothesis testing. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed between attachment systems for individual prosthetic complications. Retentive component wear was the most common complication and occurred more frequently in the bar-locator group, whereas denture relining was more common in the bar-ball group. Although the mean number of complications per patient was higher with bar-locator attachments, the difference did not reach statistical significance. However, the large effect size suggested a potentially clinically meaningful increase in maintenance burden associated with bar-locator systems. Conclusion: Both attachment systems demonstrated frequent but manageable prosthetic complications over the 3-year follow-up period, with no statistically demonstrable superiority between designs within the limitations of this pilot study. Bar-locator attachments were associated mainly with retentive component wear, whereas bar-ball attachments showed greater relining requirements. No catastrophic mechanical failures were observed, supporting the clinical reliability of both systems. These preliminary findings may assist in the design and sample size estimation of future adequately powered clinical trials.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Journal of Dentistry
Published
2026-07-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0046-1824596
Primary Topic
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Complications and Maintenance of Mandibular Two-implant Overdentures: A 3-year Pilot Randomized Clinical Study of Bar–Locator Versus Bar–Ball Attachments

Heba Wageh Abozaed, Rafif Alshenaiber, Mohamed Kamal Eid, Rania E. Bayoumi
European Journal of Dentistry
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
article

Complications and Maintenance of Mandibular Two-implant Overdentures: A 3-year Pilot Randomized Clinical Study of Bar–Locator Versus Bar–Ball Attachments

Heba Wageh Abozaed, Rafif Alshenaiber, Mohamed Kamal Eid, Rania E. Bayoumi
article en

Abstract

Objective: This 3-year pilot randomized clinical study aimed to compare prosthetic complications and maintenance requirements of mandibular two-implant overdentures retained by bar-locator and bar-ball attachment systems. Materials and Methods: = 5) attachment systems. All participants received new complete dentures before implant placement. Two implants were inserted in the inter-foraminal region and restored with the assigned bar-retained attachment. Prosthetic complications and maintenance events were recorded during scheduled follow-up visits over 3 years. Evaluated outcomes included retentive component wear, attachment separation, screw loosening, denture tooth and base complications, opposing prosthesis fractures, and relining requirements. Statistical Analysis: Descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact test, independent samples t-tests, effect sizes, and confidence intervals were used for analysis, with emphasis placed on estimation rather than formal hypothesis testing. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed between attachment systems for individual prosthetic complications. Retentive component wear was the most common complication and occurred more frequently in the bar-locator group, whereas denture relining was more common in the bar-ball group. Although the mean number of complications per patient was higher with bar-locator attachments, the difference did not reach statistical significance. However, the large effect size suggested a potentially clinically meaningful increase in maintenance burden associated with bar-locator systems. Conclusion: Both attachment systems demonstrated frequent but manageable prosthetic complications over the 3-year follow-up period, with no statistically demonstrable superiority between designs within the limitations of this pilot study. Bar-locator attachments were associated mainly with retentive component wear, whereas bar-ball attachments showed greater relining requirements. No catastrophic mechanical failures were observed, supporting the clinical reliability of both systems. These preliminary findings may assist in the design and sample size estimation of future adequately powered clinical trials.

European Journal of Dentistry
Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University (SA), Mansoura University (EG), Al-Azhar University (EG), Tanta University (EG), Tanta University Hospital (EG), Al-Azhar University (ID)
Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.