Patient Satisfaction with Maxillary 3‐Implant Overdentures Using Different Attachment Systems Opposing Mandibular 2‐Implant Overdentures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-based outcomes with maxillary overdentures on a minimum number of implants, opposing mandibular 2-implant overdentures are not evident in the literature. PURPOSE: To evaluate patient's satisfaction with maxillary 3-implant overdentures, opposing mandibular 2-implant overdentures, using two different attachment systems over the first 2 years of service. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty participants wearing mandibular 2-implant overdentures for 3 years were randomly allocated to one of two similar implant system groups to receive maxillary 3-implant overdentures. Twenty participants were allocated to splinted and unsplinted attachment system treatment groups for each system. Patient satisfaction with pre-treatment complete maxillary dentures, with maxillary 3-implant overdentures at baseline and annually for 2 years, was measured using visual analogue scale questionnaires and the oral health impact profiles. Palatal coverage of the maxillary overdentures was reduced at the first annual recall. RESULTS: Data showed significant improvement in pain reduction, comfort, stability, and function variables of the visual analogue scale after treatment. Analysis by prosthodontic design using visual analogue scale showed no significant difference. The total oral health impact profile-14 scores after treatment for all participants, regardless of prosthodontic design, were significantly lower (more satisfied). The overall oral health impact profile-20E score at baseline was significantly higher (more satisfied) compared with pre-treatment conventional maxillary dentures. No significant changes were observed in the first or second years compared with baseline results. Twenty-two participants (84.6%) preferred reduced palatal coverage, regardless of prosthodontic design, after 1 year. Twenty participants (76.9%) still preferred reduced palatal coverage at the end of the second year. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of maxillary 3-implant overdentures to oppose mandibular 2-implant overdentures significantly improve levels of patient satisfaction compared with conventional maxillary dentures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".