Double Crown-Retained Maxillary Overdentures: 5-Year Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of data concerning implant-supported overdentures (IODs) retained by double crowns in the edentulous maxilla. PURPOSE: To perform a retrospective evaluation of clinical outcomes (survival/success rates) of maxillary overdentures retained on four implants via double crowns. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between 1993 and 2011, 28 patients with edentulous maxillae were restored with overdentures supported by four implants with a Morse taper connection (Ankylos, Dentsply Friadent, Mannheim, Germany) and double crowns according to the Marburg Double Crown (MDC) technique in a private practice. For retrospective evaluation of implant and prosthetic survival (in situ criterion) and success (event-free observational period), only patients attending a professional maintenance program were included (n = 20). RESULTS: Twenty patients (13 female/ seven male, mean age: 63.45 ± 7.18 years) with 80 implants met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up period was 5.64 ± 3.50 years. One implant was lost (cumulative survival rate: 98.75%). Eight implants (10.1%) in two patients (10%) showed peri-implantitis; both patients were active smokers (cumulative success rate: 88.75%). All dentures were still functional (prosthetic survival rate 100%) at the time of investigation. Technical maintenance procedures (e.g., abutment loosening, screw loosening, acrylic fracture or relining) were required at a rate of 0.222/patient-year. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, we conclude that MDC-IODs are a promising treatment alternative for edentulous maxillae offering high implant and prosthesis survival rates > 98% and a limited incidence of biological and technical complications after a mean observational period of >5 years.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".