Ball versus other attachments in mini implant retained overdenture: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Objectives Mini implant retained overdentures have been treated in edentulous patients with promising long-term results. However, various attachment systems in this process remain insufficiently investigated. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of the ball...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Zin Hnin Pwint Aung, Pyae Phyo Win, Thanapat Sastraruji, Pathawee Khongkhunthian
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2025-04-01
Series:BMC Oral Health
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-05961-z
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850181570895282176
author Zin Hnin Pwint Aung
Pyae Phyo Win
Thanapat Sastraruji
Pathawee Khongkhunthian
author_facet Zin Hnin Pwint Aung
Pyae Phyo Win
Thanapat Sastraruji
Pathawee Khongkhunthian
author_sort Zin Hnin Pwint Aung
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Objectives Mini implant retained overdentures have been treated in edentulous patients with promising long-term results. However, various attachment systems in this process remain insufficiently investigated. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of the ball and other attachments used in mini-implant overdentures. Marginal bone loss, bite force, implant survival rate, prosthetic maintenance, and complications were assessed. Materials and methods A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases until 25th February 2025. This systematic review aimed to find studies that compare ball attachments with other attachment systems in mini dental implant (MDI) overdentures. The primary outcome was marginal bone loss, while the secondary outcomes were maximum bite force, implant survival rate, prosthetic maintenance, and complications. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs, and a quantitative meta-analysis was performed. Results Of the 561 publications, six randomized clinical trials (101 participants, 234 mini-implants) met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias assessment revealed three studies with a low risk of bias and three studies with some concerns for risk of bias. There was no significant difference in the marginal bone loss between the ball attachments and others (WMD = 0.15, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.81, p = 0.65), though ball attachments performed better than telescopic ones (P < 0.05) in subgroup analysis. No significant difference in bite force was found (WMD = -5.29, 95% CI -33.46 to 22.87, p = 0.71). Two-year survival rates were 90.9% for ball and 97.8% for bar attachments. The ERA® (Extra-Coronal Resilient Attachment) group required five interventions (sore spot adjustments, relining, nylon replacements), while the ball attachment group required only two (denture repair, nylon cap replacement) over the one-year follow-up period. Conclusions Within the limitations of the study, it can be concluded that ball, bar, and ERA® attachments yield similar outcomes in marginal bone loss while telescopic attachments show more statistically significant marginal bone loss (p < 0.05). The type of attachment does not significantly affect maximum bite force. PROSPERO registration number CRD42024610018.
format Article
id doaj-art-795862ccd8a8480b8550920a2764caec
institution OA Journals
issn 1472-6831
language English
publishDate 2025-04-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series BMC Oral Health
spelling doaj-art-795862ccd8a8480b8550920a2764caec2025-08-20T02:17:52ZengBMCBMC Oral Health1472-68312025-04-0125111410.1186/s12903-025-05961-zBall versus other attachments in mini implant retained overdenture: a systematic review and meta-analysisZin Hnin Pwint Aung0Pyae Phyo Win1Thanapat Sastraruji2Pathawee Khongkhunthian3Centre of Excellence for Dental Implantology, Faculty of Dentistry, Chiang Mai UniversityCho Thar Dental Clinic, North Okkalapa TownshipDental Research Centre, Faculty of Dentistry, Chiang Mai UniversityCentre of Excellence for Dental Implantology, Faculty of Dentistry, Chiang Mai UniversityAbstract Objectives Mini implant retained overdentures have been treated in edentulous patients with promising long-term results. However, various attachment systems in this process remain insufficiently investigated. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of the ball and other attachments used in mini-implant overdentures. Marginal bone loss, bite force, implant survival rate, prosthetic maintenance, and complications were assessed. Materials and methods A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases until 25th February 2025. This systematic review aimed to find studies that compare ball attachments with other attachment systems in mini dental implant (MDI) overdentures. The primary outcome was marginal bone loss, while the secondary outcomes were maximum bite force, implant survival rate, prosthetic maintenance, and complications. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs, and a quantitative meta-analysis was performed. Results Of the 561 publications, six randomized clinical trials (101 participants, 234 mini-implants) met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias assessment revealed three studies with a low risk of bias and three studies with some concerns for risk of bias. There was no significant difference in the marginal bone loss between the ball attachments and others (WMD = 0.15, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.81, p = 0.65), though ball attachments performed better than telescopic ones (P < 0.05) in subgroup analysis. No significant difference in bite force was found (WMD = -5.29, 95% CI -33.46 to 22.87, p = 0.71). Two-year survival rates were 90.9% for ball and 97.8% for bar attachments. The ERA® (Extra-Coronal Resilient Attachment) group required five interventions (sore spot adjustments, relining, nylon replacements), while the ball attachment group required only two (denture repair, nylon cap replacement) over the one-year follow-up period. Conclusions Within the limitations of the study, it can be concluded that ball, bar, and ERA® attachments yield similar outcomes in marginal bone loss while telescopic attachments show more statistically significant marginal bone loss (p < 0.05). The type of attachment does not significantly affect maximum bite force. PROSPERO registration number CRD42024610018.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-05961-zMini-implantsOverdentureDenture precision attachmentMarginal bone lossSystematic reviewMeta-analysis
spellingShingle Zin Hnin Pwint Aung
Pyae Phyo Win
Thanapat Sastraruji
Pathawee Khongkhunthian
Ball versus other attachments in mini implant retained overdenture: a systematic review and meta-analysis
BMC Oral Health
Mini-implants
Overdenture
Denture precision attachment
Marginal bone loss
Systematic review
Meta-analysis
title Ball versus other attachments in mini implant retained overdenture: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Ball versus other attachments in mini implant retained overdenture: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Ball versus other attachments in mini implant retained overdenture: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Ball versus other attachments in mini implant retained overdenture: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Ball versus other attachments in mini implant retained overdenture: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort ball versus other attachments in mini implant retained overdenture a systematic review and meta analysis
topic Mini-implants
Overdenture
Denture precision attachment
Marginal bone loss
Systematic review
Meta-analysis
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-05961-z
work_keys_str_mv AT zinhninpwintaung ballversusotherattachmentsinminiimplantretainedoverdentureasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT pyaephyowin ballversusotherattachmentsinminiimplantretainedoverdentureasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT thanapatsastraruji ballversusotherattachmentsinminiimplantretainedoverdentureasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT pathaweekhongkhunthian ballversusotherattachmentsinminiimplantretainedoverdentureasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis