Immediate Loading of Dental Implants in Edentulous Mandibles by Use of <scp>L</scp>ocator® Attachments or <scp>D</scp>older® Bars: Two‐Year Results from a Prospective Randomized Clinical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The study aims to evaluate survival and incidence of complications for pairs of implants placed in the front region of edentulous mandibles and immediately loaded with either bar or Locator attachments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-six patients with edentulous mandibles (mean age 69.4 years at inclusion in the study; 73.9% male) received two implants in the interforaminal area of the symphysis. Dolder bar or Locator attachments, allocated randomly, were then attached immediately, and both clips and a framework were fastened to the denture by the dental technician within 72 hours. RESULTS: During the first 3 months of the 2-year period of observation, eight implants in five patients were lost, and were removed. Survival was 89.1% and 93.5% for the bar and Locator groups, respectively. During the entire period of observation, 38 prosthetic complications required aftercare. Five dentures had to be removed or reworked after implant failure, but no superstructure was lost or had to be remade for prosthetic reasons. Survival of the original dentures was 93.5% and 95.7% for the bar and Locator groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, results from immediate loading of two implants in the edentulous mandible with either Locator or bar attachments hardly differed. Prosthetic complications and aftercare measures in the Locator group were frequent but easy to handle. Ease of repair and cleaning, in particular, might be reasons for choosing the single-attachment system.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".