SynthesisBMC oral health2025
Ball versus other attachments in mini implant retained overdenture: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMini implant retained overdentures have been treated in edentulous patients with promising long-term results. However, various attachment systems in this process remain insufficiently investigated. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of the ball and other attachments used in mini-implant overdentures. Marginal bone loss, bite force, implant survival rate, prosthetic maintenance, and complications were assessed. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases until 25th February 2025. This systematic review aimed to find studies that compare ball attachments with other attachment systems in mini dental implant (MDI) overdentures. The primary outcome was marginal bone loss, while the secondary outcomes were maximum bite force, implant survival rate, prosthetic maintenance, and complications. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs, and a quantitative meta-analysis was performed.
resultsOf the 561 publications, six randomized clinical trials (101 participants, 234 mini-implants) met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias assessment revealed three studies with a low risk of bias and three studies with some concerns for risk of bias. There was no significant difference in the marginal bone loss between the ball attachments and others (WMD = 0.15, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.81, p = 0.65), though ball attachments performed better than telescopic ones (P < 0.05) in subgroup analysis. No significant difference in bite force was found (WMD = -5.29, 95% CI -33.46 to 22.87, p = 0.71). Two-year survival rates were 90.9% for ball and 97.8% for bar attachments. The ERA
conclusionsWithin the limitations of the study, it can be concluded that ball, bar, and ERA PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024610018.
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.