Immediate Loading of Two Dental Implants, in Edentulous Mandibles, with <scp>L</scp>ocator® Attachments or <scp>D</scp>older® Bars: First Results from a Prospective Randomized Clinical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study aims to evaluate survival and the incidence of complications for pairs of implants placed in the frontal area of edentulous mandibles and immediately loaded with either bar or Locator® (Zest Anchors LLC, Escondido, CA, USA) attachments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-six patients (mean age 69.4 years; 73.9% male) with edentulous mandibles each received two immediately loaded implants in the interforaminal area of the symphysis. Immediately after implant placement, Dolder® bar (Sub-Tec Wirobond; BEGO Implant Systems GmbH & Co. KG, Bremen, Germany) or Locator® attachments, allocated randomly, were attached, and both clips and a framework were incorporated into the denture by the dental technician. The implants were loaded within 72 hours. RESULTS: During a mean observation period of 6 months (maximum 24 months, SD 0.43) eight implants in five patients were lost. Survival was 93.5% for the Locator® group and 89.1% for the bar group. Estimated cumulative survival after 1 year of function was 93.4% for the Locator® group and 87.1% for the bar group. During the observation period, 12 prosthetic complications required aftercare. No superstructure was lost or had to be remade for prosthetic reasons, but five dentures had to be removed or reworked after implant failure. Survival of the original dentures was, therefore, 95.7% for the Locator® group and 93.5% for the bar group. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, immediate loading of two implants in the edentulous mandible with either Locator® or bar attachments did hardly differ. Ease of repair and cleaning, in particular, might be arguments 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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".