Overdentures in the Edentulous Mandible Supported by Implants and Retained by a Dolder Bar: A 5‐Year Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This prospective study was performed to evaluate the outcomes of XiVE® S plus implants (Dentsply Friadent, Mannheim, Germany) following conventional restoration with bar structures and overdentures in the edentulous mandible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 39 patients were treated with four interforaminal implants (n = 156) splinted by a Dolder bar. Overdentures were attached to the bars after 3 months of healing. As primary outcome measures, clinical and radiological parameters were evaluated at the time of implant placement (baseline) and once a year (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 years) after functional loading. Secondary outcome measures included (i) primary stability and surgical complications, as well as (ii) Periotest® (Medizintechnik Gulden, Modautal, Germany) values, implant survival, and prosthetic complications at baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 156 implants were placed. The vast majority (n = 149) were tightened to >30 Ncm, while torques in the range of 20-30 Ncm were obtained in the remaining cases (n = 7). Mean crestal bone levels around the implants were 0.41 mm at baseline and 1.04/1.20/1.34/1.45/1.44 mm after 1/2/3/4/5 years respectively. The mean values of the plaque, calculus, bleeding, and mucosal indices remained low throughout this period. The reported follow-up periods involved one implant loss after 3 months (survival rate: 99.4%) and one implant failure after 4 years (success rate: 98.4%). Prosthetic complications included factures of bars (n = 3) and denture teeth (n = 7). Prosthetic survival was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Dolder bars to restore oral implants in the edentulous mandible appear to offer a high rate of implant survival, good stability of the peri-implant tissue, and a low rate of prosthetic complications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".