Early versus Delayed Loading of Mandibular Implant‐Supported Overdentures: 5‐Year Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Because of poor retention of complete removable dentures for edentulous patients, implant-supported mandibular overdentures have lately become a popular alternative for them. The aims of this prospective study were to evaluate treatment outcomes of mandibular overdentures supported by two unsplinted early-loaded implants and compare these results with those for delayed-loaded implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 26 edentulous patients were treated with two unsplinted implants supporting a mandibular overdenture. All implants were placed in the canine regions of each mandible according to the one-stage surgical protocol. There were two groups: test group, in which the overdenture was connected 1 week after surgery, and control group, in which the overdenture was connected 3 months after surgery. Standardized clinical and radiographic parameters were recorded at surgery, and after 3, 6, 12, and 18 months, and 2, 3, 4, and 5 years. RESULTS: No implants were lost, and 0.93 +/- 0.3 mm marginal bone resorption was noted for all implants after 5 years. Clinical implant stability measurements, clinical peri-implant parameters, and marginal bone resorptions showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups over 5 years. CONCLUSION: The results of this prospective clinical study suggest that there is no significant difference in the clinical and radiographic state of patients treated with implant supported mandibular overdentures loaded either 1 week or 3 months after surgery.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".