Refusal of implant supported mandibular overdentures by elderly patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to gain greater in-depth understanding of why elderly patients who are currently dissatisfied with conventional dentures decline implant treatment. BACKGROUND: There is strong evidence from high-quality randomised controlled trials to support the use of implant-supported overdentures for the restoration of the edentulous mandible. However, whilst recruiting for randomised clinical trials, researchers have found that a high proportion of potential subjects decline participation, despite the removal of financial constraints. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study adopted a qualitative approach to provide a rich and deep understanding of people's reasons for refusal. Data were collected through focus group interviews in a two-centre study based in Montreal, Canada and Newcastle, UK. A semi-structured interview schedule was used and iteratively developed as analysis identified themes from previous focus groups. Transcripts of focus groups were coded and emergent themes determined. RESULTS: Two main themes emerged; patients' fear and anxiety (relating to the pain of surgery, complications of the procedure and immediate post-surgical denture use), and the appropriateness of the procedure in an elderly person. CONCLUSIONS: Fears of pain, complications and social embarrassment, exacerbated by age, are important factors that help explain refusal of implants by elderly patients.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it