Marginal Bone Level Changes and Prosthetic Maintenance of Mandibular Overdentures Supported by 2 Implants: A 5‐Year Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Documentation of early loading of mandibular overdentures supported by different implant systems is scarce. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the biologic and prosthetic outcome of mandibular overdentures supported by unsplinted early-loaded one- and two-stage oral implants after 5 years of function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight consecutive patients were screened following an inclusion and exclusion criteria, and randomly allocated to treatment groups. Ball-retained mandibular overdentures were fabricated on two unsplinted Straumann (Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) and Brånemark (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) dental implants and subjected to an early-loading protocol. During the 5-year period, prosthetic complications were recorded. At 5-years of function, plaque, peri-implant inflammation, bleeding, and calculus index scores were recorded, and standard periapical radiographs were obtained from each implant for measurement of marginal bone loss. RESULTS: All implants survived during the observation period. The peri-implant inflammation, bleeding, and calculus index scores around Straumann and Brånemark implants were similar (p > .05). The marginal bone loss around Brånemark implants (1.21 +/- 0.1) was higher than Straumann implants (0.73 +/- 0.06) at 5 years of function (p = .002). Kaplan-Meier tests revealed that 1- and 5-year survival of overdentures on Straumann and Brånemark implants were similar (p = .85). Wear of the ball abutment in the Brånemark group was higher than in the Straumann group (p < .05). Complications regarding the retainer and the need for occlusal adjustments were higher in the Straumann group (p < .05). Chi-square test revealed that the frequency of retightening of the retainer was higher in the Straumann group than in the Brånemark group (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Mandibular overdentures supported by unsplinted early-loaded Straumann and Brånemark implants lead to similar peri-implant soft tissue and prosthetic outcomes, although higher marginal bone loss could be observed around Brånemark implants after 5 years.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".