The Effects of Mandibular Two-implant Overdentures on Nutrition in Elderly Edentulous Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is unclear whether mandibular implant overdentures improve the nutritional state of edentulous patients better than conventional dentures. In a randomized clinical trial, we tested for post-treatment differences in nutritional status between patients with mandibular two-implant retained overdentures and those with conventional complete dentures. Edentulous subjects (ages 65-75 yrs) received two-implant mandibular overdentures (IOD, n = 30) or conventional dentures (CD, n = 30). Measures of nutritional state were gathered before and 6 mos after treatment. Significant improvements in anthropometric parameters were detected in the IOD but not in the CD group, for percent body fat (p = 0.011) and skin-fold thickness at the biceps, subscapularis, and abdomen (p < 0.05), with significant decreases in waist circumference (p < 0.0001) and waist-hip ratio (p = 0.001). Significant increases were seen in concentrations of serum albumin (p = 0.015), hemoglobin (p = 0.01), and B12 (p = 0.01). No significant between-group differences were found. These results suggest that low-cost IOD treatment may improve the nutritional state of edentulous people.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".