ReviewClinical oral investigations2024
Digital wear analysis and retention of poly-ether-ether-ketone retentive inserts versus conventional nylon inserts in locator retained mandibular overdentures: in-vitro study.
Review in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- In vitro study of retention forces in traditional and PEEK milled ball attachments with two retentive caps.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Retention of CAD-CAM locator retentive attachment insert in mandibular implant overdenture.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Fracture load analysis of telescopic overdentures fabricated from PEEK and zirconia.Bioinformation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivethis study aimed to digitally compare wear behavior and retention between PEEK and nylon retentive inserts used in locator-retained, mandibular implant overdentures when attachment design and size were standardized. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of sixty-four inserts (32 PEEK and 32 nylon inserts); were picked-up in implant overdentures. Overdentures of both groups were submerged in artificial saliva and mounted to chewing simulator. After 480,000 chewing cycles (equivalent to 2 years of clinical use) all inserts were scanned by scanning electron microscope (SEM), then all acquired images were digitally analyzed by software to detect and compare quantitative and qualitative changes of inserts in both groups. On the other hand, retention of both groups was measured by universal testing machine and the collected data was statistically analyzed using one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test with significance level set at P ≤ 0.05.
resultsPEEK inserts showed significantly higher mean retentive values compared to the nylon inserts in the control group. Also, PEEK retentive inserts exhibited statistically lower mean wear values than the control group P ≥ 0.000. Qualitative investigation revealed significant and more pronounced changes in the surface roughness of nylon inserts compared to PEEK ones.
conclusionsRegarding retention, wear behavior and dimension stability, PEEK can be recommended as retentive insert material in cases of locator-retained mandibular implant overdentures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: PEEK inserts offer enhanced retention, reduced wear, and greater dimensional stability over two years time interval. Clinically, this reduces prosthodontic maintenance and adjustments, improving patient satisfaction and long-term prosthetic success.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.