Implant Tooth‐Supported Removable Partial Denture with at Least 15‐Year Long‐Term Follow‐Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the present report is to describe the long-term follow-up of cases treated with implant tooth-supported removable partial denture (ITSRPD) after at least 15 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study sample comprised 20 consecutively partially edentulous patients treated with ITSRPD. Implants were placed in order to improve unfavorable removable partial denture design resulting from unfavorable teeth distribution and biomechanical considerations, esthetic, or periodontal challenges. All patients were followed up every 6 months for the first 2 years and annually thereafter for at least 15 years. Recall visits for professional cleaning and oral hygiene re-enforcement were scheduled every 3 to 6 mounts. RESULTS: A total of 42 implants were placed in 20 patients and restored with ITSRPD. All implants and prosthetic devices functioned successfully throughout the 15 years of follow-up. Three patients had gone through further implant placement several years after ITSRPD was provided, and a fixed implant-supported restoration was provided on the original and new implants. No implant failure was noted during follow-up, resulting in a rate for implant survival of 100% for the study. Marginal bone loss around implants ranged between 0 and 2 mm (mean 0.64 ± 0.6 mm). During the follow-up period, prosthetic complications were minor and included one rest rupture. All patients answered a questionnaire and were satisfied with the prosthesis. They reported good chewing ability and stability of the prosthetic devices. CONCLUSIONS: ITSRPD can be used with predictable long-term results in carefully selected and well-maintained population. Patients should be advised of their role in maintenance, and a comprehensive recall system is mandatory to obtain satisfactory long-term results.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".