Surgical placement of two implants in the anterior edentulous mandible – how much time does it take?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order for clinicians to effectively manage their practices, they need to know how much time they spent in carrying out procedures. The provision of two-implant overdentures for edentulous patients is becoming more prevalent as increasing evidence demonstrates their great benefit to patients. The aim of this study was to measure the number of visits and the time required during the surgical phase (from pre-op examination to preliminary impressions) of mandibular two-implant overdenture treatment. Thirty edentulous patients were assigned to receive two root-form implants in the mandible between the mental foramen, as part of a randomized controlled clinical trial. All visits and time spent by the oral surgeon, the surgical assistant and the prosthodontist were measured individually. The mean number of scheduled visits with the oral surgeon was four, and the mean time taken was 104 min. The mean time taken by the surgical assistant was 122 min. On average, the prosthodontist was required for two visits, with a total mean time of 36 min. In addition to the scheduled visits, 14 patients solicited additional appointments (unscheduled visits) for various problems (e.g. loose healing cap). The average time taken for unscheduled visits was 32 min. Combining scheduled and unscheduled visits, the mean total time taken by the oral surgeon was 109 min. The surgical assistant was needed for a mean total of 125 min, and the prosthodontist spent, on average, 46 min in this phase of treatment. Results from this study will assist clinicians in establishing the total time and number of visits needed for the surgical phase of two-implant mandibular overdenture treatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".