Retention Mechanisms and Prosthetic Complications of Implant‐Supported Mandibular Overdentures: Long‐Term Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although many studies report high survival rates of mandibular implants supporting an overdenture, complications with prostheses and the need for prosthetic maintenance are not so well documented. PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to analyze three categories of prosthetic complications in relation to the type of retention mechanism for overdenture connection to the implants (ie, rigid or resilient). MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred nineteen patients with a total of 258 implants participated in the study. They had been monitored regularly during an observation period of 5 to 15 years (mean 9.3 yr). Seventy-five patients had a resilient retention device (ball anchors or a round clip bar); 44 patients had a rigid bar with or without distal extensions. The incidence and rate of complications were calculated for the overall- and for the 2- and 5-year observation periods. Comparisons were made between the three categories of maintenance and the two types of retention. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was applied for calculations of changes of the retention mechanism. RESULTS: The mean number of complications per overdenture during the entire observation period was 3.5; this did not differ statistically between the two retention groups. Some significant differences were found only for the 2- and 5- year period. Broken, loose, or lost female parts were more frequently observed with resilient devices, as were repairs and relining of the resin denture base, whereas tightening of bar retainers was more typical with rigid bars. A change from a resilient retention device to a rigid bar was performed more often than vice versa but not at a statistically significant level. CONCLUSION: Although these long-term results do not indicate a significant difference between the retention groups, a slight superiority of the rigid bar is suggested.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".