Locator Attachments as an Alternative to Ball Attachments in 2-Implant Retained

The classical treatment plan for the edentulous patient involves creation of maxillary and mandibular complete dentures. However, people who wear con-ventional dentures often report discom-fort or frank pain, lack of retention and stability, and difficulty eating. These com-plaints relate mostly to mandibular com-plete dentures.1 Osseointegrated implants provide a reasonable solution for problems with these dentures.2 Implant-retained mandibular overdentures are associated with significantly greater general satisfac-tion, comfort, stability and ability to chew than conventional mandibular dentures.3 Two-implant retained mandibular over-dentures are a routine therapy modality supported by the McGill consensus.4 Previous authors have reported less bone atrophy in edentulous mandibles into which implants have been placed; as such, implants are also important for bone preservation.5–7 Several attachment systems are available for 2-implant re-tained mandibular overden-tures, specifically ball, bar and magnet attachments and rigid or nonrigid telescopic copings.8 Because of their simplicity of application and low price, ball attachments are preferred.9,10 Although there are conflicting reports,11–14 ball attachments often have better scores for re-tention, soft-tissue or mechan-ical complications, and patient satisfaction than bar and magnet attachments.6,15–20 When the interarch distance or the height of the denture is inadequate for placing ball at-tachments, several problems may “Clinical Showcase ” is a series of pictorial essays that focus on the technical art of clinical dentistry. The section features step-by-step case demonstrations of clinical problems encountered in dental practice. If you would like to contribute to this section, contact editor-in-chie