Magnets have generated great interest within

dentistry, and their applications are numerous. The 2

main areas of their use are orthodontics
1,2
and remov-
able prosthodontics. The reason for their popularity is
related to their small size and strong attractive forces;
these attributes allow them to be placed within pros-
theses without being obtrusive in the mouth. Despite
their many advantages, which include ease of cleaning,
ease of placement for both dentist and patient, auto-
matic reseating, and constant retention with number
of cycles, magnets have poor corrosive resistance with-
in oral fluids and therefore require encapsulation
within a relatively inert alloy such as stainless steel or
titanium. When such casings are breached, contact
with saliva rapidly brings about corrosion and loss of
magnetism.
This review chronicles the development of magnets
in dentistry and critically reviews their current status in
removable prosthodontics.
MAGNETIC MATERIALS
Over the last century, significant advances have been
made in the development of magnetic materials; these
advances have been quickly transferred into dental appli-
cations. The main magnetic material used is the rare
earth material neodymium iron boron (Nd-Fe-B),
3,4
which is the most powerful commercially available mag-
net material. Other materials used include the RE alloy
samarium cobalt (Sm-Co).
5,6
Before the development
of rare earth magnets, Alnicosalloys based on alu-
minum, cobalt, and nickelwere the main materials in
use, although cobalt platinum (Co-Pt) magnets also
existed.
7
Samarium iron nitride is a promising new candidate
for permanent magnet applications because of its high
resistance to demagnetization, high magnetization,
and better resistance than Nd-Fe-B-type magnets to
temperature and corrosion.
7
This material is still under
development, but it is expected to become available
for medical and dental applications in the near future.
Additional information on magnetic materials and
their applications may be found in articles by Harris
8
and Harris and Williams.
9
TYPES OF MAGNETISM
Magnetic materials may be termed either soft
(easy to magnetize or demagnetize) or hard (able to
retain magnetic properties and be made into perma-
nent magnets). Whether a material is hard or soft
depends on whether it retains its magnetic properties
after the removal of an applied magnetic field.
Every atom is a magnet because electrons orbit its
nucleus and, as moving charges, produce a magnetic
field. However, most electrons are paired, and the
equal and opposite fields cancel out. In some atoms
such as Fe, Ni, and Co, there are unpaired electrons
that create a tiny magnetic field. In a magnetic mater-
ial, a large portion of these atoms align in small regions
called domains. In an unmagnetized state, the ori-
entation of these domains is random and no overall
magnetization is experienced.
On the application of a magnetic field (H), the
domains align and thereby produce an overall magne-
tization in the specimen, which will reach a saturation
point (Ms). Magnetically soft materials require only
small fields to reach saturation, whereas magnetically
hard materials require large fields to reach saturation.
When the applied field is removed, a permanent mag-
net or hard material retains much of the magnetization
or remanence (B
r
). This magnetization in the speci-
men is reduced to zero by the application of an equal
but opposite field to the magnetization in the speci-
men. The value of H at this point is the intrinsic
coercivity (iHc). If the applied field is reversed
between the same positive and negative limits, a sym-
metrical loop called a hysteresis loop is traced out.
Magnets in prosthetic dentistry
Melissa Alessandra Riley, BMedSc, PhD,
a
Anthony Damien Walmsley, BDS, MSc, PhD,
b
and Ivor Rex
Harris, BSc, PhD, DSc
c
The University of Birmingham and St. Chads Queensway, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Magnetic retention is a popular method of attaching removable prostheses to either retained roots
or osseointegrated implants. This review chronicles the development of magnets in dentistry and
summarizes future research in their use. The literature was researched by using the Science
Citation Index and Compendex Web from 1981 to 2000. Articles published before 1981 were
hand researched from citations in other publications. Articles that discussed the use of magnets in
relation to prosthetic dentistry were selected. (J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:137-42.)
a
Recent PhD graduate, School of Metallurgy and Materials, The
University of Birmingham.
b
Professor, School of Dentistry, St. Chads Queensway.
c
Professor, School of Metallurgy and Materials, The University of
Birmingham.
AUGUST 2001 THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 137
For a permanent magnet, it is the maximum energy
product, (BH)max, that gives an indication of its power.
The larger this value, the greater the flux produced by a
magnet of a given volume. The development of various
magnetic materials and improvements in energy prod-
uct ([BH]max) over the last century are shown in
Figure 1. Additional information on magnetism may be
found in the text by Jiles.
7
REMOVABLE PROSTHODONTICS
Various devices such as springs, suction cups, clips,
and studs all have been used to retain complete and
removable partial dentures within the mouth.
10
Magnets also have been used for this purpose because
they are easy to incorporate into a denture and can
simplify both clinical and technical procedures.
However, there are limitations to their use; these lim-
itations are related mainly to their low corrosion
resistance within the mouth.
11,12
The first attempts at using magnets to retain den-
tures involved implanting them within the jaw
13,14
;
problems ensued because of the large size of the mag-
nets and the inadequate forces that they provided. As
material technology improved, smaller magnets were
made that could be incorporated into retained roots
with similar units built into the denture. Later devel-
opments included the replacement of the root magnet
with a soft magnetic material that is magnetized while
the denture is in place but returns to a demagnetized
state on removal of the denture.
In the last 20 years, the design of magnetic attach-
ments has changed to reduce the external magnetic
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY RILEY, WALMSLEY, AND HARRIS
138 VOLUME 86 NUMBER 2
fields present while the denture is in place. The meth-
ods of corrosion protection have also improved.
15
Improvements in magnetic materials have allowed
smaller and more powerful magnetic attachments to
be produced from Sm-Co and Nd-Fe-B alloys.
IMPLANTATION OF MAGNETS
Magnet repulsion
The first recorded use of magnets in prosthetic den-
tistry involved using the repulsion of like poles of
magnets to maintain and improve the seating of com-
plete dentures.
16
The magnetic material used was an
Alnico type that has been discontinued in dental appli-
cations because of the large bulk necessary for magnet
strength. The magnets were embedded in molar
regions in the bases of complete dentures so that the
like poles were orientated toward each other. As the
patient closed his or her jaws together, mutual repul-
sion of the like poles of the magnets seated the denture
against the alveolar ridges.
17
However, the constant
repelling force promoted resorption of bone in the
alveolar ridge, and the seating effect fell dramatically
when the jaws were apart and the need for the seating
effect was at its greatest.
Magnet attraction
The use of the attractive force between 2 magnets
for denture retention was reported in the early
1960s.
13,14
These first attempts were made with
Alnico V and both rectangular and cylindrical PMMA-
coated magnets, which were surgically implanted in
the mandible of an edentulous patient. This trial
Fig. 1. Improvements in (BH)max with time (from Harris and Williams
4
).
showed that, because of the distance between the 2
magnets, they provided inadequate force to aid den-
ture retention. The introduction of smaller, stronger
Co-Pt magnets allowed continuation of clinical tri-
als.
14
Unfortunately, several disadvantages were
associated with Co-Pt magnets, including their high
cost, limited availability, and difficult fabrication. It
was also found that the implanted magnet migrated
through the bone and tissues until it became exposed
in the oral cavity.
18
The procedure was eventually
abandoned because of the high costs involved and
poor success rates.
With the introduction of the powerful magnet mate-
rial Sm-Co, the use of implanted magnets to aid denture
retention was investigated again.
19
These magnets could
be produced in dimensions approximately one fifth of
the Co-Pt magnets and still provide the same force.
Because of the susceptibility of the magnets to corro-
sion, a proplast coating (polytetrafluoroethylene
[PTFE] and pyrolytic graphite) was used. Experiments
were carried out on dogs to establish whether proplast
could be used as an effective coating for Sm-Co mag-
nets in the in vivo environment. The study concluded
that the coating provided corrosion protection if there
were no faults or damage to the coating during surgical
placement. Proplast is no longer used as a coating mate-
rial, but PTFE is used as the binder in polymer-bonded
magnets.
7
However, these are unsuitable for long-term
use within the body because diffusion of moisture
through the polymer results in inadequate corrosion
protection of the magnet material.
Section summary
Early attempts at using magnets for denture reten-
tion were unsuccessful, mainly because of the large size
of magnets at that time and the inadequate forces that
they provided. However, since the introduction of rare
earth magnets such as Sm-Co
5,6
and Nd-Fe-B,
3,4
it has
become possible to produce magnets with small
enough dimensions to be used in dental applications
and still provide the necessary force. This negates the
need to implant the materials; consequently, interest in
using magnets for denture retention has once again
increased, as is demonstrated by the number of clinical
reports on this subject.
CONVENTIONAL USE OF MAGNETS
Open-field systems
The first reported use of magnets for the retention
of overdentures took place in the 1960s
20
with the
rehabilitation of a patient with a cleft lip and palate.
The magnetic Co-Pt alloy was used to produce crowns
for 3 remaining teeth with cast Co-Pt also built into
the denture. This was soon followed by the technique
of cementing magnets within retained roots for the
retention of overdentures.
21
An Sm-Co magnet was
RILEY, WALMSLEY, AND HARRIS THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
AUGUST 2001 139
cemented into a prepared cavity in the root surface,
and a similar magnet was placed in the denture. The
technique was modified to prevent corrosion of the
magnets in the oral environment
22
with the use of a
cast gold coping to cover the magnet; whether this was
successful is unclear.
Soft magnetic root keepers: Various studies have been
carried out on the effects of magnetic fields and mag-
netic materials with conflicting results.
18,23-33
The
details of this work are beyond the scope of this article,
but there is nothing to suggest that adverse clinical
effects have occurred after 40 years of magnetic applica-
tions within medicine and dentistry. However, because
of fears over the effects of magnetic fields on the soft tis-
sues, a soft magnetic material, Pd-Co-Ni alloy, was
developed for use in the root face.
34
Three alloys were
investigated as replacements for the root element com-
ponent: Pd-Co, Pd-Co-Cr, and Pd-Co-Ni. After
assessment of the magnetic and physical properties and
corrosion resistance, the Pd-Co-Ni alloy was found to
be the most suitable.
35
However, it was also shown that
Pd-Co-Pt alloys are the most corrosion-resistant.
36
The
advantage of these alloys is that the root element pos-
sesses no permanent magnetic properties; thus, no
magnetic fields are experienced within the oral envi-
ronment once the dentures are removed. Other soft
magnetic materials used for root keepers have includ-
ed magnetic stainless steels, Permendur (an alloy of
iron and cobalt
37
), and chromium-molybdenum
alloys.
38
Such alloys have been cast to form a root coping or
pre-formed into a keeper with or without a screw
thread for cementation into the root or attachment to
an implant.
39
The cast copings have been cemented
and, in some situations, cross-pinned into the root to
avoid loss of the keeper should breakdown of the
adhesive occur.
40
Although there have been fears over
the effects of magnetic fields on human tissues, open-
field systems are commonly used in both denture
retention and orthodontic applications today.
Closed-field systems
Many commercial systems are now of the closed-
field type; these attempt to reduce the magnetic field
effects in the oral cavity. The magnetic attachments
incorporate soft magnetic materials (such as ferritic or
martensitic stainless steel or a Pd-Co-Ni alloy) that
connect the 2 poles of a magnet so the external field is
shunted through the path of less resistance, reducing
external fields in situ. This is demonstrated in Figure 2,
which shows the differences in the external magnetic
fields experienced with open- and closed-field systems.
Attachment of closed-field magnets is more effi-
cient because both the north and south poles can be
used for attachment to the keeper (in open-field sys-
tems, only one pole is used) and the keepers can
contain the magnetic flux. Although these systems
generally provide a higher retentive force than a simi-
larly sized open-field system, the retention reduces
rapidly with increasing separation.
41,42
The first
closed-field design was the split pole design,
43
which
consisted of 2 magnets arranged with opposite poles
adjacent to each other. A soft magnetic keeper was
attached to the top of the magnets, and a similar keep-
er was built into the root.
Comparisons of the forces provided by paired mag-
nets, single magnets and soft magnetic material, and
reversed and nonreversed poles have been performed.
Paired magnets provided a greater breakaway force
than a single magnet with a soft magnet keeper. A
reversed split pole system, as designed by Gillings,
43
provided a greater force than a nonreversed split pole
design.
44
Since then, other commercial systems have come
into use, and the designs of these systems have
evolved.
35
Various designs exist that are based on cir-
cular and rectangular assemblies. A magnet sandwich
design has been shown to work well,
45
although the
amount of retention provided by this design depends
on the thickness of the side plates and the base.
46
Finite element analysis (FEA) has been used to
improve the design of these attachments to maximize
the force that they provide.
38
FEA is able to show
magnetic flux distributions within a design and also
give information on contact forces and the force sep-
aration characteristics of magnetic systems. A
closed-field design consisting of a magnet in a cup,
which in turn is placed in an outer cup (Fig. 2), pro-
vides a higher retention force than a simple open-field
system that incorporates a similarly sized magnet.
However, a circular closed-field sandwich-type design
provides a greater amount of retention still. If the
keeper materials are made ellipsoidal, then retention
will increase further.
38
Clinical usage
Magnetic attachments have most commonly been
used for the retention of mandibular overdentures.
Many authors have described procedures for the use
of magnets in this application,
20,47-49
and patients
have reported a high degree of satisfaction with
their dentures.
50
There has been renewed interest in
using magnetic attachments for the provision of
mandibular overdentures with osseointegrated
implants.
15,51
The implant-supported overdenture
consists of an implant-supported keeper and a mag-
net that is built into the denture. Two to 4 implants
may be used, and these are placed in the anterior
region of the mouth and spaced as widely as possi-
ble to provide maximum support and stability. The
magnets may be used as attachments on freestand-
ing implants or in combination with a bar
attachment. A bar attachment spans the implants;
the magnets are placed in contact with the bar
rather than individual keepers on implants.
51
Many
clinical reports demonstrate the successful use of
magnetic attachments with implant-supported over-
denture systems.
52-60
Magnets have been used in
both mandibular and maxillary implant-supported,
full-arch bar, fixed-detachable prostheses.
51
CORROSION
The main problem associated with the use of
magnets as retentive devices is corrosion by oral flu-
ids.
36,61-63
Both Sm-Co and Nd-Fe-B are extremely
brittle and susceptible to corrosion, especially in
chloride-containing environments such as saliva. The
corrosion products from rare earth magnets also
have been shown to have cytotoxic effects in in vitro
tests.
28,64
Therefore, magnetic materials must be
securely separated from the oral fluids before use in
dental applications.
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY RILEY, WALMSLEY, AND HARRIS
140 VOLUME 86 NUMBER 2
Fig. 2. For simple, cylindrical, open-field magnet encased in nonmagnetic housing, magnet-
ic field is experienced outside magnetic specimen (A). However, when soft magnetic
materials are used for encapsulation (for example, in cup design [B]), magnetic flux is con-
tained within encapsulation material and channeled into root keeper component.
B A
Although some current magnet assemblies are
encapsulated in stainless steel or titanium,
15
some
devices fail after only approximately 18 months in clin-
ical use because of corrosion and loss of retention
provided by the attachment.
60,65
The buildup of cor-
rosion products may also result in discoloration of the
denture teeth.
66
Corrosion of magnetic attachments
may occur by 2 different mechanisms
11
: (1) break-
down of the encapsulating material, and (2) diffusion
of moisture and ions through the epoxy seal between
can and magnet.
Both Nd-Fe-B and Sm-Co
5
magnets corrode rapidly
in saliva, and the presence of bacteria has been shown to
increase the corrosion of Nd-Fe-B magnets.
67,68
Various methods have been used to try to eliminate the
problem of corrosion; these involve encapsulating or
coating the magnets for use intraorally. Titanium and
stainless steel are the most common materials used for
encapsulation of dental attachments,
15
but polymeric
materials also have been used in both prosthodontic and
orthodontic applications.
19,28
However, continual wear
of the encapsulating material leads to exposure of the
magnet
60
; this has been shown to occur clinically.
59,60
The wear takes the form of deep scratches and gouges
on the surface caused by wear debris and other particles
that become trapped between the 2 surfaces.
11
The
excessive wear of the magnet may be due to the abrasive
nature of the titanium-nitride-coated soft magnetic root
keeper that is used with some implant systems.
The pitting corrosion of stainless steel occurs
because of the corrosive oral environment; similar cor-
rosion has been observed in different systems.
11,12
To
overcome the problems associated with the use of den-
tal magnets, it appears that different encapsulating
materials or surface coatings are required. In industry,
other coatings such as titanium and chromium nitrides
have been used to prevent wear. These coatings
require investigation before use, although titanium-
nitride is used in some orthopedic applications.
An additional problem associated with attachments
sealed by polymeric materials is the diffusion of mois-
ture and ions, which attack the magnet component,
through the seal. This mechanism applies only to mag-
nets sealed by this technique, and the time to failure is
dependent on the rate of diffusion and path length of
the seal.
11
To achieve a highly reliable system, other
nonpermeable sealing techniques such as laser welding
should be used. Laser welding currently is in use on
some commercial open-field systems such as the Dyna
(Dyna Dental Engineering, Bergen op Zoom, The
Netherlands) and Steco (Steco-system-technik, GmbH
& Co, Hamburg, Germany) systems
15
and merits fur-
ther investigation. In some systems, if breakdown of
the encapsulation material occurs, then corrosion
products leak out.
11
As bulk magnet material is lost
from within the can, the stainless steel, no longer sup-
ported, is able to plastically deform inward. Clinically,
this is observed as a groove down the center of the
magnet face.
60
FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
The lifetime of dental magnetic attachments
depends on several factors, but the main problem is
the inadequate protection of the encapsulation materi-
als; once they are breached, rapid corrosion of the
internal magnet occurs. Improvements in sealing tech-
niques (namely, laser welding) have resulted in more
effective sealing of magnet encapsulations. However,
further work is required to find more corrosion- and
wear-resistant encapsulation materials.
SUMMARY
Magnets provide a useful method for attaching
dental prostheses to either retained roots or osseoin-
tegrated implants. Magnetic technology is constantly
improving: currently available magnets based on
Nd-Fe-B are small (which allows them to be incorpo-
rated into dentures) and have attractive forces that
enable them to provide retention. The major research
question that has not been solved is the problem of
corrosion. When in contact with saliva, magnets cor-
rode and experience subsequent loss of magnetism.
Encapsulating materials such as stainless steel are
effective but susceptible to wear. Magnets therefore
have a relatively short life, although more research is
required to help the clinician determine their poten-
tial lifespan within the mouth. The development of
samarium-iron-nitride may offer better resistance to
corrosion, and its introduction into prosthodontics
will be viewed with much enthusiasm.
REFERENCES
1. Blechman AM, Smiley H. Magnetic force in orthodontics. Am J Orthod
1978;74:435-43.
2. Springate SD, Sandler PJ. Micromagnetic retainers: an attractive solution
to fixed retention. Br J Orthod 1991;18:139-41.
3. Sagawa M, Furimura S, Togowa N, Yamatoto H, Matsuura Y. New mater-
ial for permanent magnets on a base of Nd and Fe. J Appl Phys
1984;55:2083-7.
4. Croat JJ, Herbst JF, Lee RW, Pinkerton FE. Pr-Fe and Nd-Fe-based materi-
als: a new class of high-performance permanent magnets (invited). J Appl
Phys 1984;55:2078-82.
5. Strnat KJ. The hard magnetic properties of rare earth-transition metal
alloys. IEEE Trans Magn 1972;8:511-6.
6. Tawara Y, Strnat KJ. Rare earth-cobalt permanent magnets near the 2-17
composition. IEEE Trans Magn 1976;12:954-8.
7. Jiles D. An introduction to magnetism and magnetic materials. 2nd ed.
London: Chapman and Hall; 1988. p. 3-16, 44-48, 89-102, 363-93.
8. Harris IR. Hard magnets. Mater Sci Tech 1990;6:962-6.
9. Harris IR, Williams AJ. The attractions of rare earth magnets. Mater World
1999;7:478-81.
10. Basker RM, Harrison A, Ralph JP. Overdentures in general practice. Part
5the use of copings and attachments. Br Dent J 1983;155:9-13.
11. Riley MA, Williams AJ, Speight JD, Walmsley AD, Harris IR.
Investigations into the failure of dental magnets. Int J Prosthodont
1999;12:249-54.
12. Wirz J, Lopez S, Schmidli F. Magnetverankerungen auf implanten. Teil 2:
korrosionsverhalten. Quintessenz 1993;44:737-49.
RILEY, WALMSLEY, AND HARRIS THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
AUGUST 2001 141
13. Behrman SJ. The implantation of magnets in the jaw to aid denture reten-
tion. J Prosthet Dent 1960;10:807-41.
14. Behrman SJ. Magnets implanted in the mandible: aid to denture reten-
tion. J Am Dent Assoc 1964;68:206-15.
15. Wirz J, Lopez S. Magnetverankerungen auf implanten. Teil 1: bestandesauf-
nahme. Quintessenz 1993;44:579-88.
16. Freedman H. Magnets to stabilize dentures. J Am Dent Assoc 1953;47:288.
17. Winkler S, Pearson MH. The effectiveness of embedded magnets in com-
plete dentures during speech and mastication: a cineradiographic study.
Dent Dig 1967;73:118-9 passim.
18. Toto PD, Choukas NC, Abati A. Reaction of bone to a magnetic implant.
J Dent Res 1963;42:643-52.
19. Connor RJ, Svare CW. Proplast-coated high-strength magnets as potential
denture stabilization devices. J Prosthet Dent 1977;37:339-43.
20. Thompson IM. Magnetism as an aid to a prosthetic problem. Br J Oral
Surg 1964;2:44-6.
21. Moghadam BK, Skandrett FR. Magnetic retention for overdentures. J
Prosthet Dent 1979;41:26-9.
22. Maroso DJ, Tischler P, Schmidt JR. A simplified technique for magnetic
retention of overdentures. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51:599-601.
23. Cerny R. The reaction of dental tissues to magnetic fields. Aust Dent J
1980;25:264-8.
24. Altay OT, Kutkam T, Koseoglu O, Tanyeri S. The biological effects of
implanted magnetic fields on the bone tissue of dogs. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:345-9.
25. Bondemark L, Kurol J, Wennberg A. Biocompatibility of new, clinically
used, and recycled orthodontic samarium-cobalt magnets. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 1994;105:568-74.
26. Bondemark L, Kurol J, Larsson A. Human dental pulp and gingival tissue
after static magnetic field exposure. Eur J Orthod 1995;17:85-91.
27. Bondemark L, Kurol J, Larsson A. Long-term effects of orthodontic magnets
on human buccal mucosaa clinical, histological and immunohisto-
chemical study. Eur J Orthod 1998;20:211-8.
28. Bondemark L, Kurol J, Wennberg A. Orthodontic rare earth magnetsin
vitro assessment of cytotoxicity. Br J Orthod 1994;21:335-41.
29. Linder-Aronson S, Lindskog S, Rygh P. Orthodontic magnets: effects on gingi-
val epithelium and alveolar bone in monkeys. Eur J Orthod 1992;14:255-63.
30. Linder-Aronson S, Lindskog S. A morphometric study of bone surfaces
and skin reactions after stimulation with static magnetic fields in rats. Am
J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;99:44-8.
31. Camilleri S, McDonald F. Static magnetic field effects on the sagittal suture
in Rattus norvegicus. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;103:240-6.
32. Saygili G, Aydinlik E, Ercan MT, Naldoken S, Ulutuncel N. Investigation
of the effect of magnetic retention systems used in prostheses on buccal
mucosal blood flow. Int J Prosthodont 1992;5:326-32.
33. Donohue VE, McDonald F, Evans R. In vitro cytotoxicity testing of
neodymium-iron-boron magnets. J Appl Biomater 1995;6:69-74.
34. Sasaki H, Kinouchi Y, Tsutsui H, Yoshida Y, Ushita T. Applications of samar-
ium cobalt magnets to dentistry. Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Rare Earth Magnets and their Applications. Hakone, Japan;
May 1979.
35. Kinouchi Y, Ushita T, Tsutsui H, Yoshida Y, Sasaki H, Miyazaki T. Pd-Co
dental casting ferromagnetic alloys. J Dent Res 1981;60:50-8.
36. Vrijhoef MM, Mezger PR, Van der Zell JM, Greener EH. Corrosion of fer-
romagnetic alloys used for magnetic retention of overdentures. J Dent
Res 1987;66:1456-9.
37. Okuno O, Nakano T, Hamanaka H, Kinouchi Y. Encapsulated sandwich
type dental magnetic retainers by NdFeB magnet and permandur yoke.
Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Rare Earth Magnets
and Applications. Kyoto, Japan; May 1989.
38. Tanaka Y, Hiranuma K, Iwama Y, Honkura Y. Sealed dental magnetic
attachment developed by three-dimensional magnetic analysis.
Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Rare Earth Magnets
and Applications. Kyoto, Japan; May 1989.
39. Wang NH, von der Lehr WN. The direct and indirect techniques of mak-
ing magnetically retained overdentures. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:112-7.
40. Smith GA, Laird WR, Grant AA. Magnetic retention units for overden-
tures. J Oral Rehabil 1983;10:481-8.
41. Highton R, Caputo AA, Matyas J. Retentive and stress characteristics for a
magnetically retained partial overdenture. J Oral Rehabil 1986;13:443-50.
42. Akaltan F, Can G. Retentive characteristics of different dental magnetic
systems. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:422-7.
43. Gillings BR. Magnetic retention for complete and partial overdentures.
Part I. J Prosthet Dent 1981;45:484-91.
44. Laird WR, Grant AA, Smith GA. The use of magnetic forces in prosthetic
dentistry. J Dent 1981;9:328-35.
45. Jackson TR, Healey KW. Rare earth magnetic attachments: the state of the
art in removable prosthodontics. Quintessence Int 1987;18:41-51.
46. Riley MA. The use of magnets in biomedical applications [PhD thesis].
Birmingham: The University of Birmingham; 2000.
47. Gillings BR. Magnetic retention for overdentures. Part II. J Prosthet Dent
1983;49:607-18.
48. Gillings BR. Magnetic denture retention systems: inexpensive and effi-
cient. Int Dent J 1984;34:184-97.
49. Kroone HB, Bates JF. Overdentures with magnetic retainers. Br Dent J
1982;152:310-3.
50. Jonkman RE, Van Waas MA, Kalk W. Satisfaction with complete inter-
mediate dentures and complete intermediate overdentures. A 1-year
study. J Oral Rehabil 1995;22:791-6.
51. Jackson TR. The application of rare earth magnetic retention to osseoin-
tegrated implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:81-92.
52. Carlyle LW, Duncan JM, Richardson JT, Garcia L. Magnetically retained
implant denture. J Prosthet Dent 1986;56:583-6.
53. Walmsley AD, Brady CL, Smith PL, Frame JW. Magnet-retained overden-
tures using the Astra dental implant system. Br Dent J 1993;174:399-404.
54. Burns DR, Unger JW, Elswick RK, Beck DA. Prospective clinical evalua-
tion of mandibular implant overdentures: part I. Retention, stability, and
tissue response. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73:354-63.
55. Burns DR, Unger JW, Elswick RK, Gigilo JA. Prospective clinical evalua-
tion of mandibular implant overdentures. Part II. Patient satisfaction and
preference. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73:364-9.
56. Chan MF, Johnston C, Howel RA, Cawood JI. Prosthetic management of
the atrophic mandible using endosseous implants and overdentures: a
six-year review. Br Dent J 1995;179:329-37.
57. van Waas MAJ, Kalk W, van Zetten BL, van Os JH. Treatment results with
immediate overdentures: an evaluation of 4.5 years. J Prosthet Dent
1996;76:153-7.
58. Naert I, Gizani S, Vuylsteke M, van Steenberghe D. A 5-year prospective
randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral
implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and
patient satisfaction. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26:195-202.
59. Davis DM. Implant supported overdenturesthe Kings experience. J
Dent 1997;25(Suppl 1):S33-7.
60. Walmsley AD, Frame JW. Implant supported overdenturesthe
Birmingham experience. J Dent 1997;25(Suppl 1):543-7.
61. Angelini E, Pezzoli M, Zucchi F. Corrosion under static and dynamic
conditions of alloys used for magnetic retention in dentistry. J Prosthet
Dent 1991;65:848-53.
62. Drago CJ. Tarnish and corrosion with the use of intraoral magnets. J
Prosthet Dent 1991;66:536-40.
63. Kitsugi A, Okuno O, Nakano T, Hamanaka H, Kuroda T. The corrosion
behavior of Nd2Fe4B and SmCo5 magnets. Dent Mater J 1992;11:119-29.
64. Gendusa NJ. Magnetically retained overlay dentures. Quintessence Int
1988;19:265-71.
65. Davis DM, Packer ME. Mandibular overdentures stabilized by Astra Tech
implants with either ball attachments or magnets: 5-year results. Int J
Prosthodont 1999;12:222-9.
66. Boice GW, Kraut RA. Maxillary denture retention using rare earth mag-
nets and endosteal implants. Int J Oral Implantol 1991;7:23-7.
67. Wilson M, Patel H, Kpendema H, Noar JH, Hunt NP, Mordan NJ.
Corrosion of intra-oral magnets by multi-species biofilms in the presence
and absence of sucrose. Biomaterials 1997;18:53-7.
68. Wilson M, Kpendema H, Noar JH, Hunt N, Mordan NJ. Corrosion of intrao-
ral magnets in the presence and absence of biofilms of Streptococcus sanguis.
Biomaterials 1995;16:721-5.
Reprint requests to:
PROFESSOR A. DAMIEN WALMSLEY
SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY
ST CHADS QUEENSWAY
BIRMINGHAM B4 6NN
UNITED KINGDOM
FAX: (44)121-625-8815
E-MAIL: a.d.walmsley@bham.ac.uk
Copyright 2001 by The Editorial Council of The Journal of Prosthetic
Dentistry.
0022-3913/2001/$35.00 + 0. 10/1/115533
doi:10.1067/mpr.2001.115533
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY RILEY, WALMSLEY, AND HARRIS
142 VOLUME 86 NUMBER 2