Interventions for replacing missing teeth: preprosthetic surgery versus dental implants
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preprosthetic surgery refers to the surgical procedures that can modify the oral anatomy to facilitate the retention of conventional dentures. Osseointegrated implants offer an alternative treatment to improve denture retention. A denture may be connected by special attachments to implants placed into the jaw. OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the success (patient satisfaction and morbidity) and cost effectiveness between conventional prostheses that require preprosthetic surgery (PPS) and implant retained prostheses (IRO) that do not require preprosthetic surgery, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group (OHG) Specialised Register (May 2002), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE and EMBASE (May 2002) were searched. In addition, 55 implant companies were contacted and the bibliographies of review articles were checked for studies outside the hand searched journals and personal references were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing preprosthetic surgery and implant retained dentures for improving denture retention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers (HW, PC). Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out (ME, PC). The Cochrane OHG's statistical guidelines were followed. MAIN RESULTS: One study, containing 60 participants, reported in four articles was identified for inclusion in this review. No studies were excluded. There was a statistically significant difference between mean patient satisfaction scores with patients in the IRO group being more satisfied in general at both year one (WMD = -0.66(95% CI; -1.28 to -0.04)) and five years (WMD = -0.90(95%CI; -1.74 to -0.06). Altered sensation of the lower lip and chin was measured at one year and five years. There was no statistically significant difference at either time point and no patients had altered sensation at five years. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is weak evidence from the results of one randomised controlled trial including 60 subjects that patients are generally less satisfied with preprosthetic surgery and a conventional denture than with an implant retained denture. There is a need for more well designed trials comparing the success and cost-effectiveness of preprosthetic surgery and implant supported dentures. Such trials should be reported according to the CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org/). However, since preprosthetic surgery is considered to be an obsolete treatment nowadays, almost completely replaced by dental implants, it may be that new RCTs on this topic will not be designed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".