ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2025
Novel nonmagnetic abutment designs for facial prostheses: an experimental study.
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: This in vitro study was undertaken with the aim of evaluating and comparing the retentive forces of novel nonmagnetic abutment designs developed as alternatives to conventional magnetic abutments for facial prostheses. Materials and methods: A plexiglass model was constructed and two extraoral implants were placed in these blocks in a parallel position. Nonmagnetic abutments made of titanium were fabricated and screwed onto the implants. The nonmagnetic systems represent a novel design and include two different abutment designs (type 1 and type 2) with silicone attachments. Retentive force values for the three abutment types of a conventional magnetic system (CMS), the nonmagnetic abutment type 1 system (NMS1), and the nonmagnetic abutment type 2 system (NMS2) were measured at the 0th, 120th, 360th, 720th, and 1440th dislodging cycles using a test machine. Given the data's distribution characteristics, nonparametric tests were used for analysis. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to evaluate significant differences among groups, followed by Dunn's posthoc test for specific group comparisons. The Friedman test compared the number of dislodging cycles for each group, and the Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted Wilcoxon sign-rank test was used for pairwise comparisons. Results: Both NMS1 and NMS2 exhibited significantly higher retentive forces compared to CMS for the same dislodging cycles (p < 0.01). The NMS1 group showed the highest initial retentive force (9.98 ± 0.89 N), followed by the NMS2 group (9.65 ± 0.35 N), but this difference was not statistically significant. Significant differences in retention force values were observed among the three groups across the dislodging cycles (p < 0.001). The lowest retentive force in the last dislodging cycle was observed in the CMS group (3.39 ± 0.04 N). Additionally, the retention forces decreased in all groups with each increasing dislodging cycle. Conclusion: The two newly developed nonmagnetic systems displayed higher retentive forces compared to the magnetic systems and can be considered viable alternative abutment options for facial prostheses.
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.