ArticleJournal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects2024
Effect of attachment type and implant position on the retention of mandibular implant-supported overdentures.
Article in Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: In implant-supported overdentures increase in the number of implants improves the retention and stability of the overdentures. A direct correlation exists between prosthesis retention and patient satisfaction. Therefore, this experimental study assessed the effect of attachment type and implant position on the retention of mandibular implant-supported overdentures. Methods: A transparent acrylic resin model of the mandible was fabricated, and dental implants were positioned at the first molar area (position 6), between the lateral incisor and canine teeth (positions B and D), and first premolars (positions A and E) bilaterally. Novaloc attachments (strong, medium, and light retentive caps) were used with ABDE, 6AE6, and 6BD6 implant positions. A Dolder bar attachment was also used with the ABDE implant position. Overdenture retention was measured under vertical loading, and the maximum dislodging force (MDF) was recorded. Data were analyzed by two-way and one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests (α=0.05). Results: The effects of attachment type and implant position [except for ABDE and 6AE6 with light retention insert ( Conclusion: With Novaloc attachments, minimum retention was recorded in ABDE, and maximum retention was recorded in the 6BD6 implant position due to the increased distance between attachments. The strong insert showed the highest retention value, which confirmed the manufacturer's claim. Maximum retention was recorded with the bar and clip attachment.
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.