ArticleCureus2025
Computation of the Retentive Forces of Ball and Magnet Attachments in a Two-Implant-Retained Mandibular Overdenture.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdvancements in tooth replacement have led to increased use of implant overdentures, prompting the proposal of various attachment systems. Unsplinted options like ball, magnetic, and telescopic attachments offer different retention methods. Ball attachments are straightforward but require periodic O-ring replacement and are limited by implant angulation. In contrast, magnet attachments are versatile and compact, thanks to rare-earth element alloys. Their strength and corrosion resistance make them advantageous.
objectiveThis study compares magnetic and ball attachments' retention in mandibular implant overdentures, focusing on B and D implant positions. It aims to determine the most effective attachment for stability and ease of use.
methodsIn this in vivo comparative study, eight completely edentulous patients were selected randomly according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two-piece implants were placed in the mandibular arch at the B and D positions. After osseointegration, second-stage surgery was done, and a gingival former was placed. Two mandibular record bases were fabricated for each patient using heat-cure acrylic resin. One for ball attachment (Group A) and the other for magnet attachment (Group B), and retention was measured using a custom-made device. This device allows us to apply an increasing, vertical force on the record base. The force was increased gradually until dislodgement of the denture base occurred. The procedure was repeated three times for all eight patients with ball and magnet attachments. The applied vertical force was registered in kilograms (kg) by the weighing scale, and afterwards, it was expressed in newton (N).
resultThe retention of ball attachment (Group A) was comparatively greater than that of the magnet attachment (Group B).
conclusionThe retention of mandibular implant-retained overdenture by ball attachments (Group A) was found to be significantly more than that of magnet attachment (Group B).
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.