Influence of Age on Clinical Performance of Mandibular Two‐Implant Overdentures: A 10‐Year Prospective Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective comparative study was to assess whether age has influence on peri-implant health in patients treated with mandibular two-implant overdentures during a 10-year evaluation period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study was carried out with two groups of edentulous patients, viz a younger (n = 52; mean age 45 years, 35-50 years) and an older (n = 53; mean age 68 years, 60-80 years) group. In all patients, two dental implants were placed in the interforaminal region of the mandible and after a 3-month healing period overdentures were fabricated. Clinical and radiographic parameters were evaluated immediately after completion of the prosthetic treatment, and after 1, 5 and 10 years. Implant loss, plaque index, gingival index, bleeding index, and probing depth were assessed as clinical parameters. Peri-implant bone loss was assessed on dental radiographs made with a standardized long-cone technique with a direction device. RESULTS: Implant survival after 10 years was 97.1% and 93.4% in the younger and older group, respectively. Ten-year scores of plaque, gingiva, and bleeding were between 0 and 1 for both groups (possible scores 0-3), and mean probing depth was 3 mm in both groups. Mean peri-implant bone loss after 10 years was 1.2 and 1.4 mm in the younger and older patients, respectively. No significant differences were observed between the groups. CONCLUSION: Clinical performance of mandibular two-implant overdentures is equally successful in younger and older 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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".