MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1529050484 · doi:10.1111/cid.12335

Maxillary Four Implant‐retained Overdentures via <scp>L</scp>ocator® Attachment: Intermediate‐term Results from a Retrospective Study

2015· article· en· W1529050484 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Feng Wang, Alberto Monje, Wei Huang, Zhiyong Zhang, Guomin Wang, Yiqun Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineDentistryImplantMaxillaRetrospective cohort studyProsthesisBleeding on probingOrthodonticsDental prosthesisPeriodontitisSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Maxillary overdentures have been utilized to restore oral function in scenarios where limited bone structure represents a drawback for financial issues and for cases where oral hygiene is uncertain. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the intermediate-term clinical outcome of four locator attachment retaining maxillary overdentures and to test their reliability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted from January 2007 to October 2013. After the placement of four maxillary dental implants and a healing period of approximately 3 months, all the implants were restored with locator-retained overdentures with partial palatal coverage. Subjects and implant characteristics, implant position (anterior vs posterior maxilla), bone quality, and opposing dentition were recorded. Peri-implant clinical parameters and marginal bone loss (MBL) were evaluated after delivery of the final prosthesis and annually thereafter. The performance of locator components and the prosthetic restoration were also recorded at follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 104 implants were placed in 26 subjects (11 women, 15 men; mean age, 64 years; age range, 55-76 years). One implant failed before loading. One subject dropped out of the study during a mean follow-up period of 46 months (range: 7-73 months), achieving an overall survival rate of 95.2%. Clinical parameters revealed healthy tissues around most of the implants, with low scores of plaque and bleeding indices. At the last follow-up evaluation, the mean MBL was 1.7 ± 1.1 mm (0.4-2.6 mm). Regression model analysis indicated that MBL for implants in the posterior maxilla was significantly higher than that for implants in the anterior maxilla (p = .0487). Overall, 26 technical and prosthetic complications were reported. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, maxillary four implant-retained overdentures via Locator attachment seem to be a predictable alternative for oral rehabilitation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→