Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36159066›Full record

ReviewJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research

Peri-implant stress distribution assessment of various attachment systems for implant supported overdenture prosthesis by finite element analysis - A systematic review.

Bappaditya Bhattacharjee, Ritu Saneja, Ankita Singh, Pavan Kumar Dubey, Atul Bhatnagar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Finite element analysis of primary healing implants with different transmucosal designs.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Bappaditya BhattacharjeeDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, India.
Ritu SanejaDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, India.
Ankita SinghDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, India.
Pavan Kumar DubeyDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, India.
Atul BhatnagarDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Various attachments like ball, bar-clip, magnetic attachments are used in implant supported overdentures. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) a newly innovated technology has been used in dental implantology to evaluate stress distribution patterns. There is little evidence available regarding the stress distribution in peri-implant region for implant supported overdentures. The purpose of the review was to generate scientific evidence on peri-implant stress distribution in FEA model with different types of attachments employed in implant supported overdentures. Materials and methods: Systematic review was conducted as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews Guidelines and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA). A comprehensive search was undertaken by two reviewers from January 2020 to June 2020 with no year limits to published articles. Only in-vitro FEA studies were included. Following electronic databases were searched for published studies- PubMed, Web of Science. Characteristics of the studies tabulated and analysis of articles was done to compare different attachment systems. Results: Locator attachments showed better stress distribution than ball attachment system in all the studies but one. Two studies showed results in favour of ball attachment compared to bar-clip attachment system when stress was evaluated distal to the implants. No significant difference in terms of stress concentration could be generated between ball versus magnetic/equator versus locator attachment system due to less number of studies and conflicting results. Conclusion: Various studies showed different results due to heterogenicity in selected attachment systems and study designs. Locator attachments showed favourable stress distribution around peri-implant bone than other attachments.

Identifiers

PMID36159066
PMCPMC9490590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.