"From Bars to Biomimetics: The Changing Landscape of Overdenture Attachment Systems-" A Review.

International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17617472 Original Article ©2025 RS Publicaon, rspublica[email protected] 42 “From Bars to Biomimetics: The Changing Landscape of Overdenture Attachment Systems-” A Review. Dr.B. LakshmanaRao 1 , Dr.G. Sirisha 2 , Dr.D. Kundanaveni 3 , Dr.A. Sathvika 4 , Dr.K. Bhanuprasad 5 . 1.Prof & HOD, Dept of Prosthodontics, Lenora Institute of Dental Sciences, Rajahmundry, A.P., 2. Reader, Dept of Prsothodontics, Lenora Institute of Dental Sciences, Rajahmundry, A.P., 3. Sr. Lecturer, Dept of Prsothodontics, Lenora Institute of Dental Sciences, Rajahmundry, A.P., 4. Sr. Lecturer, Dept of Prsothodontics, Lenora Institute of Dental Sciences, Rajahmundry, A.P., 5. Sr. Lecturer, Dept of Prsothodontics, Lenora Institute of Dental Sciences, Rajahmundry, A.P. ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT ©2025 RS Publicaon Paper ID: IJASTR6916F3771E186 Received: 2025-10-16 Published: 2025-11-15 DOI: https://dx.doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.1761 7472 Page No: 42-59 The evolution of overdenture attachment systems demonstrates ongoing advancements in prosthodontics, prioritizing retention, stability, and patient comfort. In the past, tooth-supported attachments including bar and clip systems, stud attachments (Dalbo, Ceka, ERA), and early magnetic systems were common ways to keep residual roots and improve retention. Although these traditional technologies worked well, they often had problems with technique sensitivity, maintenance, and long-term durability. In today's world, implant-supported attachments like ball and socket, Locator, bar-clip, and advanced rare-earth magnetic systems have greatly enhanced how well prostheses work, how weight is distributed, and how happy patients are. Digital processes, CAD/CAM-milled frames, and precision-manufactured retention inserts have made clinical work more accurate and made it easier to do things at the chairside. Innovations like self-healing polymers, 3D-printed custom attachments, nanocomposite materials, and AI-integrated smart sensor systems offer adaptive retention, digital monitoring, and tailored prosthetic performance in the future. So, the change from mechanical to intelligent attachment methods is a big step toward more precise, longlasting, and patient-specific prosthodontic solutions. Key words: Overdentures, Attachments, Bar and Clip, Locator, Magnetic, Self-healing; Smart prosthodontics, Future trends. Corresponding Author: Dr.B. LakshmanaRao, Mail:  [email protected] Internaonal Journal of Advanced Scienfic and Technical Research Available online on hp://www.rspublicaon.com/ijst/index.html ISSN 2249-9954 Cite This Paper: LakshmanaRao Bathala, Dr.G. Sirisha Dr.D. Kundanaveni, Dr.A. Sathvika and Dr.K. Bhanuprasad (2025). "“From Bars to Biomimecs: The Changing Landscape of Overdenture Aachment Systems-” A Review.". INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL RESEARCH (IJASTR), vol. 15, no. 6, 2025, pp. 42-59. DOI: hps://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17617472 International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17617472 Original Article ©2025 RS Publicaon, rspublica[email protected] 43 Introduction Overdentures are removable prosthetics that get their support and retention from teeth, roots, or implants that are underneath them. They use several attachment techniques to do this. The development of overdenture attachments shows how material science, precision engineering, and digital dentistry have all improved retention, stability, patient comfort, and longevity. Overdenture attachments have changed from mechanical retention methods to precisionengineered, digitally planned, and perhaps smart biofunctional interfaces. The future is all about long-lasting, customizable, and biologically compatible products. This fits with the goals of precision and individualized prosthodontics. [1-3] Past Attachments (Conventional / Early Era) Early attachment mechanisms were often complicated and made of metal. The main goal of these was to make retention better than with ordinary mucosa-supported dentures. Type Description / Mechanism Examples Bar and Clip Attachments An abutment with a metal bar and a clip in the denture base Dolder bar, Hader bar, Ackerman bar Stud Attachments (Early Forms) Ball and socket mechanisms that are strong Rothermann attachment, Dalbo, Gerber Magnets (Initial Use) Used for overdentures that stay in place with roots; not very good at holding them in place Cobalt-Samarium magnets, Alnico magnets O-Ring / Simple Ball Attachments Easier than bar designs; used friction between metal and rubber Early O-ring systems in the 1960s–1970s Limitations: Corrosion, wear, hard-to-maintain hygiene, and loss of retention from mechanical fatigue. [4-6] Present-Day Attachments (Contemporary Systems) Modern overdenture attachments are designed to keep the denture in place, spread out stress, be easy to clean, and be comfortable for the patient. There are designs that are supported by teeth, implants, or both. Category Examples Features Stud Attachments Locator, Dalbo Plus, Stern ERA, Ball/O-ring Low vertical height, self-aligning, and replaceable nylon inserts Magnetic Attachments Neodymium-Iron-Boron (NdFeB) magnets Resistant to rust, small, and suitable for tight spaces between arches International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17617472 Original Article ©2025 RS Publicaon, rspublica[email protected] 44 Category Examples Features Bar Attachments Hader Bar, Dolder Bar, PreciBar Great control over retention and parallelism Telescopic (DoubleCrown) Attachments Conus, friction-fit copings Excellent retention and parallelism control Locator R-Tx Titanium nitride coating, corrosion-resistant Improved wear resistance and ease of maintenance Pros: better retention, easier upkeep at the chair, and well with digital processes. [5-8] Future Aspects of Overdenture Attachments The next generation of prosthodontic systems will use smart materials, digital design, and biointegration. [9-12] Aspect Future Trend / Research Direction Smart Self-Healing Materials Using self-repairing polymers and nanocomposites in attachment housings to make them last longer 3D Printing & CAD/CAM Custom Attachments Digital scanning and additive manufacturing can be used to make custom precise attachments that fit the anatomy of each patient. Magneto-Active Smart Attachments Magnetic fields that can be changed to adjust the retention force Bioactive Surface Coatings Coatings that help bones grow together and keep bacteria from growing on them AI-driven Occlusal Load Monitoring Adding sensors to keep an eye on the forces on attachments and guess when they will break Hybrid Smart Polymers Creating polymeric housings that are strong, don't rust, and can change shape to fit different stress patterns International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17617472 Original Article ©2025 RS Publicaon, rspublica[email protected] 45 Conventional Attachments Used for Overdentures (Bar and Clip, Stud, Magnetic, and O-ring attachments) 1. Bar and Clip Attachments [13-15] These were first used in the 1950s and 1960s. They are made up of a metal bar (typically gold or cobalt-chromium alloy) that connects two or more abutments. A clip in the denture base holds them in place. Some common ones are the Dolder bar, the Hader bar, and the Ackerman bar. Pros Splints the abutments and spreads the occlusal stresses uniformly across them. Is far more stable and stays in place better than free-standing attachments. Can be made to fit uneven abutments. Makes it easier for teeth/implants and soft tissues to share the load and support each other. Drawbacks Needs enough vertical space between the arches. Complicated procedures in the lab and in the clinic. Hard to keep clean under the bar, which leads to plaque buildup and inflammation around the abutment. The high cost is because to the precise materials and production. Frequent wear and tear on clips means they need to be replaced every so often. Signs There are several abutments and implants that can be placed in a straight line. Cases that need a lot of stability and load distribution, including mandibular overdentures. Patients having enough space between their arches. Things that should not be done Space between the arches is small (<10 mm). Bad hand dexterity or bad dental hygiene. Non-parallel abutments that can't be fixed. Uses Often used for overdentures that are supported by teeth or implants. Best for mandibular implant overdentures with 2 to 4 implant bar designs.Used to hold and maintain mobile abutments in place. [13-15] International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17617472 Original Article ©2025 RS Publicaon, rspublica[email protected] 46 2. Stud Attachments ( Mechanical Types) These are ball-and-socket systems that are attached to dental roots or implants. Some of the first instances are Rothermann, Dalbo, Gerber, and Ceka attachments. [16-18] Pros Easy to make and keep up with a simple design. The denture may move on its own, which lowers torque on the abutments. It has a self-locating feature, especially in later models like Dalbo. Cheaper than bar systems. Drawbacks Not very good at resisting lateral forces, which could make the abutment move. Parts for men and women wear out with time, which makes them less likely to stay in place. Hard to line up when the abutments aren't parallel. Loss of retention over time owing to wear or distortion. Signs There aren't many abutments that have strong periodontal support. Cases where there isn't much room between the arches. Overdentures with a single root, like canines. Things that are not allowed Abutments with weak roots or short clinical crowns. Not taking care of your teeth or having a high risk of getting cavities. There is a lot of non-parallelism between the abutments. Uses Commonly used for overdentures that stay on the teeth (maxillary or mandibular). Can be used as separate units or as part of a splint. Modern stud attachments (Locator, ERA, etc.) were inspired by early designs. [16-18] 3. Magnetic Attachments (Early Generation) Early magnets (Alnico, Cobalt-Samarium) were used in denture bases to hold metal keepers on tooth roots using magnetic force. [6,19,20] Pros Easy to insert and remove, which is good for older or disabled individuals. Very little vertical height—good for small spaces between arches. Easy to clean and doesn't have any moving parts. Creates a strong bond that lets teeth move naturally. International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17617472 Original Article ©2025 RS Publicaon, rspublica[email protected] 47 Drawbacks Problems with corrosion because of contact with saliva (particularly Alnico kinds).Weak magnetic fields get worse with time. Limited lateral stability; mainly holds things in place vertically. Possible effects on the pulp or tissue from stray magnetic fields (rare). Signs Patients who are sick or old and have trouble using their hands. Cases with less space between the arches. Overdentures that stay in place with roots and need light retention. Things that should not be done Ferromagnetic repairs in the area (may cause problems). High functional demands (too much chewing load). Bad outlook for the abutment. Uses: Root-retained overdentures, especially in geriatric prosthodontics. Useful in transitional prostheses.Used where mechanical wear needs to be kept to a minimum. [6,19,20] 4. O-Ring (Rubber Retentive Stud) Attachments Consists of a ball (male) attached to the abutment and an elastic O-ring (female) housed in a metal cap within the denture base. First used in the 1960s–1970s as a low-cost alternative to precision attachments. [2, 17,21] Advantages: Simple, inexpensive, and easy to replace chairside. Shock-absorbing effect due to rubber ring elasticity. Allows limited vertical and rotational movement, minimizing stress on abutments. Good for limited interarch space. Disadvantages: Rubber deterioration over time → retention loss. Difficult to clean; plaque may accumulate around the O-ring. Limited longevity compared to precision attachments. Requires periodic maintenance (O-ring replacement). Indications: Two-implant or two-root overdentures. Elderly or low-cost patients needing simple retention. Interim overdenture designs or transitional prostheses. Contraindications: High occlusal load or parafunctional habits (O-ring wear). Poor manual dexterity—requires maintenance. Multiple non-parallel abutments. Uses: Common in mandibular overdentures with two roots or implants. Interim or costsensitive cases. Basis for modern ball and Locator systems. International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17617472 Original Article ©2025 RS Publicaon, rspublica[email protected] 48 PRESENT ERA ATTACHMENTS USED FOR OVERDENTURESADVANTAGES, DISADVANTAGES, INDICATIONS, CONTRAINDICATIONS AND USES: Modern attachment methods have improved patient satisfaction, greater retention, and better biomechanical load distribution thanks to digital design and biocompatible materials. The major categories include: 1. Stud Attachments (Ball, Locator, ERA, Dalbo Plus) 2. Magnetic Attachments (NdFeB magnets, closed-field systems) 3. Bar Attachments (Hader, Dolder, Preci-Bar) 4. Telescopic (Double-Crown) Attachments 5. Locator R-Tx and Smart Hybrid Systems 1. Stud Attachments (Contemporary Types) (e.g., Ball/O-Ring, Locator, ERA, Dalbo Plus) [3,18,21,22] A stud attachment has a male part (a ball, cone, or post on an abutment or implant) and a female part (a retentive nylon or metal cap inside the denture base). The Locator and ERA systems are the most common current versions. Benefits Low vertical profile, good for small interarch spaces. The self-aligning mechanism, notably the Locator, makes it easier to insert. Strong connection—allows for some vertical and rotational movement, which lowers load on abutments. Nylon inserts that can be easily replaced, making it easy to maintain at the chair. Good retention and happy patients. Works with digital workflows and CAD/CAM. Disadvantages Wearing out of nylon inserts → progressive loss of retention. Has a lot of maintenance (has to be replaced every one to two years). For the best function, the abutments ought to be parallel to each other. Saliva or debris inside housings could impact retention. Signs Overdentures that are supported by implants or teeth and have enough space between the arches. 2 to 4 implants support mandibular overdentures. Patients looking for retention that is easy, clean, and cheap. Things that should not be done Severe angulation (>20°) between abutments or implants (unless they are self-aligning). A lot of chewing or bruxism. Not brushing your teeth well or not following the rules. Uses: Most often utilized for two-implant mandibular overdentures. Used in maxillary overdentures and International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17617472 Original Article ©2025 RS Publicaon, rspublica[email protected] 49 root-retained overdentures. Locator R-Tx utilized for versions that are coated with titanium nitride and are resistant to wear. 2. Magnetic Attachments (Modern NdFeB Systems) Modern neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) magnetic attachments have taken the place of older Alnico kinds. They are housed in corrosion-resistant stainless steel or titanium to keep them in place vertically and make them more durable. [6, 24, 25] Pros Easy to put in and take out, perfect for older or disabled people. Low vertical height, which is suitable for small interarch spaces. Force that stays the same no matter what angle it is at. Coatings that resist corrosion make things last longer. Less wear and tear on the machine because there is no friction. Problems Limited lateral stability (just vertical retention). Demagnetization causes the retentive force to decrease over time. More expensive than simple stud attachments. There may be microleakage at the edges of encapsulation over time. Signs Older people or people with disabilities who have trouble with dexterity. Overdentures that are held in place by roots in partially resorbed ridges. Cases with little gap between the arches. Things that should not be done High chewing forces or bruxism. Several different abutments that need support from the side. Use with cautious medical devices that are sensitive to magnets (such pacemakers). Uses Commonly utilized in tooth-supported overdentures. Used in maxillary and mandibular overdentures that are easy to put in. Perfect for geriatric prosthodontics and recovery after maxillectomy. [6,24,25] 3. Bar Attachments (Modern Precision Systems) (e.g., Hader Bar, Dolder Bar, Preci-Bar, CAD/CAM-Milled Bars) [1,11,26] These are made out of a precision-milled bar structure that connects two or more implants, with clips or riders in the denture to hold them in place. Modern bars use titanium or cobalt-chrome frameworks that have been CAD/CAM-milled for a better fit and cleanliness. International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17617472 Original Article ©2025 RS Publicaon, rspublica[email protected] 50 Pros Great retention and stability, especially for mandibular overdentures. Splints implants, which lower stress and micromovement. Perfect load distribution over the abutments. CAD/CAM fabrication makes sure that things fit together without any problems and that plaque doesn't stay on as long. Better looks with a bespoke design. Disadvantages High expense and complicated technology. Needs more vertical space (>12 mm). Hard to clean behind the bar—needs very careful hygiene. Over time, clip wear means that it needs to be replaced. Signs More than three implants that need to be splinted. Patients with a lot of chewing pressure (mandibular overdentures). Resorbed ridges necessitating load dispersion. Things that shouldn't be done Limited space between the arches. Not following good hygiene rules. Patients who care about costs. How to use Overdentures for the lower jaw with two or more implants. Rehabilitation of the whole arch with a detachable prosthesis. Maxillary overdentures with significant ridge resorption. [1,11,26] 4. Telescopic (Double-Crown) Attachments This system has a main coping that is attached to the abutment or implant and a secondary coping that is inside the denture base. Retention happens by a frictional fit or a conical taper, which gives strong support. Pros Great control over retention and parallelism. Gives a good distribution of stress and a splinting action. No mechanical wear, like with studs or bars. Good looks—no metal parts that can be seen. To get the most accurate results, you can use digital scanning and milling together. Cons Sensitive to technique; needs accurate tapering (5–7°). Expensive and takes a lot of time. It's hard to fix if one of the abutments breaks. Keeping up with hygiene can be hard. International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17617472 Original Article ©2025 RS Publicaon, rspublica[email protected] 57 4. Cheng Y, Li M, Zhang W, et al. Comparative evaluation of different attachment systems for implant overdentures: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(9):103– 10. 5. Rutkunas V, Mizutani H, Takahashi H. Influence of attachment wear on retention of overdenture attachments. Dent Mater J. 2007;26(2):340–7. 6. Gonda T, Ikebe K, Maeda Y. Clinical evaluation of magnetic attachment overdentures: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(6):361–7. 7. Gulati R, Singh M, Aggarwal H. Overdenture attachments: a review. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8(12):ZE01–ZE04. 8. Boudrias P, Driscoll CF. Design concepts for implant overdentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;77(1):28–33. 9. Gupta R, Parkash H, Bhargava A. Attachments for overdentures: past to present. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2010;10(2):70–5. 10. Mantri SS, Bhasin AS. Future perspectives in prosthodontics: smart materials and digital integration. J Adv Prosthodont. 2022;14(2):67–75. 11. Joda T, Ferrari M, Gallucci GO. Digital implant dentistry: the revolution is just beginning. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2021;36(1):85–96. 12. Al Helal A, Al Rumaih H, Al-Qahtani M. Smart attachment systems in implant prosthodontics: an emerging concept. J Prosthodont Res. 2023;67(4):478–85. 13. Dolder E. The bar joint mandibular denture. J Prosthet Dent. 1961;11(4):689–707. 14. Mericske-Stern R. Overdentures with roots or implants for elderly patients: a comparison. Gerodontology. 1993;10(2):73–80. 15. Naert I, Gizani S, Van Steenberghe D. Bar or ball attachments for overdentures: a 5-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997;8(5):469–78. 16. Gerber A. Precision attachments in removable prosthodontics. Quintessence Int. 1962;13(2):223–9. 17. Preiskel HW. Precision attachments in prosthodontics: the applications. Br Dent J. 1972;132(4):171–7. 18. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, et al. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Int J Prosthodont. 2002;15(4):413–4. 19. Behrman SJ. The implantation of magnets in the jaw to aid denture retention. J Prosthet Dent. 1960;10(5):807–41. 20. Gillings BR. Magnetic retention for overdentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1981;45(5):484–91. International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17617472 Original Article ©2025 RS Publicaon, rspublica[email protected] 58 21. Burns DR, Unger JW, Elswick RK, Giglio JA. Prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures: part II—comparison of bar and ball attachments. J Prosthet Dent. 1995;73(5):486–90. 22. Cakarer S, Can T, Yaltirik M, Keskin C. Complications associated with the ball, bar, and Locator attachments for implant-supported overdentures. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2011;16(7):e953–9. 23. Alsabeeha NHM, Payne AGT, De Silva RK, Thomson WM. Mandibular single-implant overdentures: preliminary results of a randomized control trial on early loading with different retention mechanisms. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22(5):486–95. 24. Jackson TR, Maeda Y, Gonda T. Improvements in magnetic attachments for overdentures: a review. J Oral Rehabil. 2014;41(12):937–46. 25. Chung KH, Chung CY, Cagna DR, Cronin RJ. Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont. 2004;13(4):221–6. 26. Naert I, Gizani S, Van Steenberghe D. Bar or ball attachments for overdentures: a 5-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997;8(5):469–78. 27. Wenz HJ, Lehmann KM. A retrospective study of conical crown-retained dentures: longevity and patient satisfaction. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;86(5):539–45. 28. Elsyad MA, Omran AO, Fouda SM. Strain analysis for bar-, telescopic-, and Locatorretained overdentures using strain gauge analysis: an in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(6):1280–8. 29. Al Helal A, Al Rumaih H, Al-Qahtani M. Smart attachment systems in implant prosthodontics: an emerging concept. J Prosthodont Res. 2023;67(4):478–85. 30. Mantri SS, Bhasin AS. Future perspectives in prosthodontics: smart materials and digital integration. J Adv Prosthodont. 2022;14(2):67–75. 31. Toohey KS, Sottos NR, Lewis JA, Moore JS, White SR. Self-healing materials with microvascular networks. Nat Mater. 2007;6(8):581–5. 32. Asar NV, Karabıyık Y, Aktaş T. Nanotechnology-based self-healing composites in prosthodontics: a review. J Prosthodont Res. 2023;67(2):210–9. 33. Tahmaseb A, Wu V, Wismeijer D. The accuracy of digital dental workflows in implant dentistry: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(Suppl 16):416–35. 34. Revilla-León M, Özcan M. Additive manufacturing technologies used for processing polymers: current status and potential application in prosthetic dentistry. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(2):146–58. 35. Shimizu H, Takahashi Y. Development of adjustable magnetic attachment system for overdentures. Dent Mater J. 2019;38(4):623–30. International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 6, 2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17617472 Original Article ©2025 RS Publicaon, rspublica[email protected] 59 36. Ahn SJ, Lee SJ, Kook JK, Lim BS. Experimental antimicrobial orthodontic adhesives using nano-silver. Dent Mater. 2009;25(2):206–13. 37. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Titanium surface modifications and their clinical impact: a systematic review. J Dent. 2015;43(8):865–82. 38. AlHelal A, AlQahtani M. Smart bioactive coatings in implant prosthodontics: nextgeneration attachment interfaces. J Prosthodont Res. 2023;67(3):250–8. 39. Balasubramaniam S, Arora S, Gupta R. Artificial intelligence applications in implant prosthodontics: a review. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;130(1):57–67. 40. Al Helal A, Al Rumaih H, Al-Qahtani M. Smart attachment systems in implant prosthodontics: an emerging concept. J Prosthodont Res. 2023;67(4):478–85.