ArticleBMC oral health2025
Retention of CAD-CAM locator retentive attachment insert in mandibular implant overdenture.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Long-term success of implant-supported overdentures: A clinical study.Bioinformation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe continuous development in digital prosthodontics allowed the customization of attachments and retentive inserts which offers an easy and cheap solution for regular maintenance of locator overdentures during daily practice. The present study compared the change in retention values of the fully digitally manufactured custom-made locator attachment retentive insert with the ready-made ones after insertion, removal, and masticatory cycles.
methodsA complete denture was constructed over a mandibular edentulous epoxy model. Two implants were inserted into the model between the laterals and canines following the prosthetically driven implant protocol. Locator retentive attachment inserts were digitally designed using free-form modeling software and milled from PEEK (Poly Ether Ether Ketone). After the pick-up of the ready- and custom-made retentive inserts, an insertion, removal, and masticatory cycles test simulating 1 year of patient usage was performed. The change in retention values was recorded at baseline, 6 months, and after one year of simulated clinical use. An independent sample t-test was used to compare the data between the two studied groups.
resultsThere were statistically significant differences in retention values between the custom-made and ready-made locator inserts at baseline and after 6 months. (p = 0.001*). On the other hand, there was no significant difference in retention after 1 year of simulated use. (p = 0.083, NS)
conclusionsThe custom-made milled locator retentive attachment insert can be used as an alternative to the ready-made one due to their comparable retention values after 1 year of simulated use.
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.