ArticleScientific reports2025
In vitro study of retention forces in traditional and PEEK milled ball attachments with two retentive caps.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This in-vitro study evaluated the retention forces of traditional metal ball attachments compared with PEEK-milled ball attachments, combined with either nylon or PEEK retentive caps. A total of 40 samples were equally divided into four groups: Group I (metal ball with nylon cap), Group II (metal ball with PEEK cap), Group III (PEEK ball with nylon cap), and Group IV (PEEK ball with PEEK cap). Retention was measured using a Testometric machine at five intervals: initial removal (T0), and after 1 (T1), 6 (T2), 12 (T3), and 24 (T4) months of simulated aging. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni tests (α = 0.05). Results showed that groups with PEEK caps (Groups II and IV) demonstrated significantly higher retention values compared with nylon-cap groups (Groups I and III) at most time points, although all groups exhibited a progressive reduction over time. The use of PEEK as both ball attachment and retentive cap may provide improved long-term retention compared with conventional metal/nylon systems; however, further clinical studies are required to validate these in-vitro findings.
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.