Evaluation of Retention, Wear, and Maintenance of Attachment Systems for Single- or Two-Implant-Retained Mandibular Overdentures: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attachment systems (AS) enhance retention and stability by anchoring the overdentures to implants. Since 2002, the McGill consensus statement recommends the 2-implant-retained overdentures as the standard choice for edentulous mandible (2-IRMO). Considering the large number of AS available, it remains difficult for a practitioner to make a reasoned choice. A systematic review was conducted in PubMed/Medline and carried out independently by three authors, on retention, wear, and maintenance of AS used clinically or in vitro specifically for 1- or 2-IRMO. The 45 selected studies include 14 clinical and 31 in vitro studies. The risk of bias was evaluated according to the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). The initial retention force of the cylindrical system is higher than the ball system. The retention loss, related to the wear of the retention device, is responsible for the most common need of maintenance, requiring activation or replacement. Plastic retention devices wear out faster and more significantly than metal ones, implying a worse time behavior of cylindrical systems, but their maintenance rate is similar. Neither system appears categorically superior. Cylindrical systems provide higher initial retention than ball ones; this advantage reduces over time with wear without affecting their need for maintenance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".