In Vivo Comparison of Retention, Maximum Bite Force, and Patient Satisfaction Between Different Attachment Systems Used in Implant-Retained Overdentures.

Keerti Goyal, Pardeep K Bansal, Yashika Aggarwal, Akansha Gupta, Gursimran Purba, Preetika Bansal

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Quercetin-Based Nanotherapeutics for Targeted Drug Delivery in Alzheimer's Disease: Comparative Insights into Molecular Mechanisms, Blood-Brain Barrier Targeting and Therapeutic Perspectives.Molecular neurobiology · 2026
Review

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

6 authors.

Keerti GoyalDepartment of Prosthodontics, Dasmesh Institute of Research and Dental Sciences, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, IND.

Pardeep K BansalDepartment of Prosthodontics, Dasmesh Institute of Research and Dental Sciences, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, IND.

Yashika AggarwalDepartment of Prosthodontics, Dasmesh Institute of Research and Dental Sciences, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, IND.

Akansha GuptaDepartment of Prosthodontics, Dasmesh Institute of Research and Dental Sciences, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, IND.

Gursimran PurbaDepartment of Prosthodontics, Dasmesh Institute of Research and Dental Sciences, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, IND.

Preetika BansalDepartment of Periodontics, Dasmesh Institute of Research and Dental Sciences, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is limited clinical literature available that directly compares retention, maximum bite force, and patient satisfaction between ball and locator attachment systems. Therefore, it is of interest to compare retention, maximum bite force, and patient satisfaction between ball and self‑aligning (positioner) attachments in mandibular implant‑retained overdentures. MATERIALS AND

methodsTwenty edentulous patients were selected for the study and randomly divided into ball and self-aligning (positioner) attachment overdentures.

resultsOver follow‑up, the self‑aligning attachment group showed greater retention, higher bite force, and better patient satisfaction compared to the ball‑attachment group. Thus, we show that the self-aligning positioner attachments are relatively better than ball attachments in terms of retention, bite force, and patient satisfaction.

conclusionThe present study provides valuable insights into the comparison of attachment systems for implant-supported overdenture; further research is imperative to validate these findings comprehensively. Additional clinical studies focusing on other attachment systems are crucial for advancing the field of implant dentistry and to provide a better understanding of long-term outcomes of these attachments.

Indexed as

ball abutmentbiting forcedental implantmandibular overdenturespositioner abutmentretentive force

Identifiers

PMID42733505

DOI10.7759/cureus.114523

PMCPMC13571399

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

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.