Survival of Double‐Crown‐Retained Dentures Either Tooth‐Implant or Solely Implant‐Supported: An 8‐Year Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare survival and incidence of complications for solely implant-supported double-crown-retained dentures (DCRDs) and combined tooth-implant-supported DCRDs for restoration of a complete jaw. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were consecutively admitted to treatment at the Department of Prosthodontics, University of Heidelberg, during a time period from 2003 to 2011. Schedule and unscheduled visits were recorded on standardized documentation forms. Age, gender, location of implants, number of abutment teeth, jaw, and antagonist were assessed as possible factors affecting the number of complications per patient. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients with 66 DCRDs on 209 implants and 102 teeth were included. Of these, 30 dentures on 129 implants were solely implant-supported whereas the other 36 were combined tooth-implant-supported. During an observation period of up to 8.3 years (mean 3.4 years; SD 1.9) superstructure survival was 93.3% for the solely implant-supported DCRDs and 100% for the combined tooth-implant-supported DCRDs. Survival without major complications was 86.7% and 83.3%, respectively. Gender and location of both superstructure and implants were statistically associated with a greater number of complications. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this exploratory retrospective study, not only solely implant-supported DCRDs but also superstructures combining remaining teeth and implants within DCRDs might be a reliable treatment option for elderly patients. Prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm this, however.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".