ArticleWorld journal of methodology2025
Comparative evaluation of retentive capacity of three different attachment systems for implant retained overdentures: An
Article in World journal of methodology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe primary issue in managing edentulous patients is the severely resorbed mandibular ridge, particularly in older individuals with diminished adaptive capacities. This compromised situation leads to the fabrication of inadequate dentures that lack retention and stability, potentially causing psychosocial issues.
aimTo determine the difference in retentive capacity between three attachment systems in implant-retained overdentures.
methodsThree edentulous mandibular models were fabricated using heat-cured polymethacrylate resin, with two implant replicas placed in the intra-foraminal region of each model. 30 acrylic resin mandibular overdentures were fabricated with provisions for three different overdenture attachment systems: A prefabricated ball/O-ring attachment, a locator attachment system, and an equator attachment system. Each model was subjected to 15000 pulls using a universal testing machine to remove the overdenture from the acrylic model and the force data were recorded.
resultsThe ball/O-ring attachment system demonstrated superior retentive capacity for 15 years, while the locator and equator attachment systems maintained excellent retentive capacity for 5 years.
conclusionThe ball/O-ring attachment system outperformed better than the other two attachment systems regarding retentive capacity. The locator and equator attachment systems presented sufficient retentive abilities until 15000 cycles. After 7500 cycles, significant differences in retentive force between the systems evolved.
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.