ArticleBMC oral health2026
Evaluation of retention of TiTach versus ball and socket attachments used in mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a comparative in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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
backgroundFor the edentulous mandible, removable prostheses that are held in place by implants are great solutions because they offer good retention with various attachments. A novel attachment system that supports an alternative kind of connection is called TiTach. Few studies have investigated this type of attachment. This study compared the retention of TiTach attachments with ball and socket attachments used for overdentures retained by mandibular implants.
methodsTwo ready-made epoxy models were used representing the edentulous mandible and two implants at the canine site with zero inclination were installed. Eight pairs of attachments were used for each model. For the first group, ball and socket attachments were used while for the second group, TiTach attachments were used. Cyclic loading with 1000 insertion and removal cycles was done. Retentive force prior to and following cycles of insertion and removal was measured using the universal testing machine. The Mann Whitney U test and the independent t test were used to compare the groups. Differences in retention values before and after cyclic loading were analyzed using paired t test.
resultsThe TiTach group displayed significantly higher retentive force values before cyclic loading (41.68 ± 6.19) and after cyclic loading (30.21 ± 6.78) compared with the ball and socket group before cyclic loading (5.44 ± 0.84) and after cyclic loading (3.20 ± 0.54), respectively (P < 0.0001). Both groups exhibited a statistically significant decline in retentive force after cyclic loading (P < 0.0001). Retention loss in the ball and socket group is 2.35 (from 5.41 to 3.06), representing a 43.44% decrease, while retention loss in the TiTach group is 10.30 (from 40.90 to 30.60), representing a 25.18% decrease.
conclusionHigher initial and final retentive force as well as a beneficial lower percentage change in retentive force were demonstrated by the TiTach attachment compared with the ball and socket attachment. The TiTach attachment could be a suitable choice when increased retention is required.
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.