Clinical wear of overdenture ball attachments after 1, 3 and 8 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Implant-supported overdentures have become the treatment of choice in restoring complete edentulism, but the types of attachment to assure durable retention are a subject of debate. Ball attachments were reported as a simple treatment, but wear of components was responsible for a decrease in retention. The aim of this retrospective study was to measure the wear of the ball abutment or patrix after three different periods of clinical wear. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty-nine specimens of three groups of patrix that were in use for a mean of 12.3 months (group A), 39 months (group B) and 95.6 months (group C) were retrieved from 35 patients and measured on a coordinate measuring machine equipped with a touch trigger probe. Ten unused ball abutments were added as a control (group D). The patrix diameters and any deviation from circularity in different axes were measured. RESULTS: The diameters of groups A, B and C were significantly different from that of group D (control). No statistically significant differences were found between diameter and circularity variations between groups B and C. The maximal amount of diameter reduction was limited to approximately 30 μm, and 90% of diameter loss at the equator due to wear was reached in group B. CONCLUSION: One, 3 and 8 years of clinical wear reduced significantly the diameters of the ball abutments tested, and the maximal amount of wear was reached after 3 years of clinical use.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".