Maxillary Three‐Implant Overdentures Opposing Mandibular Two‐Implant Overdentures: 10‐Year Surgical Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The surgical placement of four maxillary implants for overdentures may not be obligatory when opposing mandibular two-implant overdentures. PURPOSE: To determine 10-year surgical outcomes and implant success of three narrow diameter implants in edentulous maxillae with conventional loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty participants with mandibular two-implant overdentures were randomly allocated for surgery for maxillary overdentures. Using osteotomes, three implants of similar systems were placed with a one-stage procedure and 12-week loading with splinted and unsplinted prosthodontic designs. Marginal bone and stability measurements were done at surgery, 12 weeks, 1-, 2-, 5-, 7-, 10 years. RESULTS: One hundred seventeen implants were placed in 39 participants, with 35 being seen at 1 year; 29 at 2 years; 28 at 5 years; 26 at 7 years; and 23 (59%) at 10 years. Marginal bone loss was 1.35 mm between surgery and 12 weeks; 0.36 mm between 12 weeks and 1 year; 0.48 mm between 1 and 5 years; and 0.22 mm between 5 and 10 years. Implant stability quotients were 56.05, 57.54, 60.88, 58.80, 61.17 at surgery, 12 weeks, 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years. Four-field tables by implant showed success rates of 82% at 1 year; 69.2% at 2 years; 66.7% at 5 years; 61.5% at 7 years; 51.3% at 10 years. Data showed no differences between surgical technique, systems, or prosthodontic designs. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical placement with osteotomes of three narrow diameter implants for maxillary overdentures, opposing mandibular two-implant overdentures, is an acceptable approach, subject to strict patient selection. Implant success is independent of prosthodontic design.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".