ArticleBMC oral health2025
Retention of Co-Cr bars supporting mandibular implant overdenture fabricated with two techniques.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
objectiveThe goal of this study was to see how laser-sintered and regular cobalt-chromium bars affect how well they hold in place and how rough their surfaces are in lower jaw implant overdentures. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study utilized a completely edentulous mandible model that was fabricated from epoxy resin. Implants were imbedded in the canine region in the model, then implant abutment were screwed on each implant. Scan bodies were inserted, then scanning of the 3D model was done using a laboratory scanner. CO-CR bars were divided into: Group A: Twelve bars that were fabricated using the laser sintering method. Group B: twelve bars were designed using CAD/CAM for the fabrication of a wax model, and then the bar was fabricated using a conventional lost wax-casting technique. Each bar and implant were loaded with a conventional acrylic resin denture. A universal testing machine was used to apply tensile load. Surface roughness was estimated by using a digital microscope with digital software. The data was collected and analyzed using statistical analysis.
resultsThere was a significant difference between group A and group B regarding the technique of fabrication of the implant bar in both retention and surface roughness.
conclusionchanging the technique for fabricating the implant bars has improved the retention and surface roughness of the implant-supported overdenture.
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.