Loading Protocols for Mandibular Implant Overdentures: A Systematic Review with Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mandibular overdentures are a successful treatment option for the edentulous patients with long-term predictable outcomes, using conventional loading protocols. Currently, both early and immediate loading protocols for mandibular implant overdentures are prevalent in the literature. PURPOSE: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the current published literature on comparative studies using conventional versus either early and/or immediate loading protocols for mandibular implant overdentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The review was carried out in accordance with the QUOROM (Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparisons, Outcomes) format was used in conjunction with predefined inclusion criteria. A literature search of PubMed (1969-October 2008), EMBASE (1998-October 2008), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register was conducted. In addition, hand searching through refereed dental journals was also performed for the years 2000 to 2008. The meta-analysis was conducted by using the MIX software v.1.7 (Kitasato Clinical Research Center, Kanagawa, Japan). RESULTS: A total of 191 studies were identified through the electronic search. After full-text screening and cross-matching with the predefined inclusion criteria, only 10 studies with a minimum follow-up of 2 years were eligible for inclusion in this review. Of the 10 included studies, seven have compared the outcome of conventional versus early loading of implants supporting mandibular overdentures. The remaining three studies, on the other hand, compared the outcome of conventional versus immediate loading. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in the outcome between conventional and either early (p = .72) or immediate (p = .08) loading of implants supporting mandibular implant overdentures. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term outcomes of early or immediate loading protocols for mandibular implant overdentures achieved comparable success to conventional loading ones. No evidence was found of long-term studies to support or refute either early or immediate loading protocols for mandibular implant overdentures.
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 | 0.018 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".