Implant overdentures for edentulous elders: study of patient preference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies show that elders wearing implant overdentures have improved nutrition and quality of life. However, upfront costs of this therapy are high, and the income of elderly edentulous populations is low. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed (i) to measure the preferences of edentulous patients for mandibular two-implant overdentures using Willingness-To-Pay (WTP) and Willingness-To-Accept (WTA), (ii) to assess the effect of long-term financing on WTP and (iii) to assess the desired role of health care plans in financing dental prostheses. METHODS: Edentulous elders (68-79 years; n = 36) wearing maxillary dentures and either a mandibular conventional denture (CD, n = 13) or a two-implant overdenture with ball attachments (IOD, n = 23) participated in this study. All had received their prostheses 2 years previously, as part of a randomised clinical trial. A three-part questionnaire was completed during a 20-min interview with a trained researcher. RESULTS: Forty-six per cent (6/13) of the CD wearers and 70% (16/23) of the IOD wearers were willing to pay three times more than the current cost of conventional dentures for implant prostheses. These percentages were increased to 77% (CD) and 96% (IOD) if participants could pay for implant overdentures in monthly instalments. Eighty-six per cent (31/36) of all participants in both groups (21/23 IOD; 10/13 CD) thought that the government should cover at least some of the cost of implant overdentures. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that, the majority of elderly edentate individuals who have not experienced mandibular two-implant overdenture therapy are willing to pay the cost, particularly when payment can be made in monthly instalments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".