Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40599946›Full record

ArticleBioinformation2025

Retention and marginal bone loss in attachment systems for implant retained overdentures.

Surabhi Duggal, Sahba Hassan, Khadija Anwaar, Yogesh Garg, Shailesh Jain

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Surabhi DuggalDepartment of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, School of Dental Sciences, Sharda University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201310, India.
Sahba HassanDepartment of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, DJ College of Dental Sciences and Research, Modinagar, Uttar Pradesh-201204, India.
Khadija AnwaarDepartment of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, School of Dental Sciences, Sharda University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201310, India.
Yogesh GargDepartment of Public Health Dentistry, JCD Dental College, Sirsa, Haryana-125055, India.
Shailesh JainDepartment of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, Bhojia Dental College, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh- 173205, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Comparison of retention and marginal bone loss of ball, bar and locator attachment systems for implant retained overdentures it is of interest. Hence, related data were collected from 75 patients. Retention was highest for the bar system, while the locator and ball systems exhibited moderate and significant reductions. The bar attachment system outperformed ball and locator systems in retention, marginal bone preservation and patient satisfaction, making it the most effective option for implant-retained overdentures.

Indexed as

ball attachmentDental implantationdental prosthesismarginal bone loss

Identifiers

PMID40599946
PMCPMC12208265

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.