Building on the Proceedings of the McGill Conference: Implant-Retained Overdentures in an Area of South America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Since the McGill consensus conference, numerous reports have proposed the advantages of the 2-implant-retained overdenture over the conventional denture in the restorative management of the edentulous mandible. The purpose of this article was to demonstrate the use of the 2-implant-retained overdenture in the restorative management of patients with edentulous mandibles in an impoverished population. MATERIALS: To address the study's purpose, the investigators initiated a retrospective cohort study and enrolled a sample of subjects who had mandibular 2-implant overdenture treatment using the protocol described within. The primary predictor variable was whether the patient had mandibular 2-implant overdenture treatment. The primary outcome variable was survival of mandibular 2-implantoverdenture treatment as defined within. RESULTS: The study sample included 35 patients each of whom had 2 mandibular implants placed for a total of 70 implants inserted with the purpose of retaining a mandibular overdenture. The mean clinical follow-up time was 74.7 months, during which there were no incidences of implant failure. Therefore, analytical and survival analyses could not be performed. CONCLUSION: Given the increase in quality of life and ease in implementation, clinicians should now be suggesting the mandibular 2-implant overdenture as the treatment of choice in the management of the edentulous mandible.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".