Seven‐Year Follow‐Up Results of TiUnite Implants Supporting Mandibular Overdentures: Early versus Delayed Loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Implant-supported mandibular overdentures have recently become a popular treatment alternative for edentulous patients desiring increased retention of complete dentures. The goal of this study was to evaluate and present treatment outcomes of mandibular overdentures retained by two unsplinted, early-loaded implants and compare these results with those for delayed-loaded implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-six edentulous patients had two interforaminal implants placed with a one-stage protocol. The patients were each treated with a mandibular overdenture supported by ball abutments. In the test group, the overdenture was loaded 1 week after surgery and in the control group, the overdenture was loaded 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, 5, and 7 years. RESULTS: Because two patients did not make the 7-year recall, only 24 patients (48 implants) were evaluated in this study. No implants were lost, and 1.31 ± 0.2 mm marginal bone resorption was noted for all implants after 7 years. Implant stability measurements, clinical peri-implant parameters and marginal bone levels exhibited no statistically significant differences between the two groups over 7 years. CONCLUSION: The results of this clinical trial show that there is no significant difference in the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients treated with mandibular overdentures supported by TiUnite implants that are either early or delayed loaded.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".