Patient Satisfaction with Implant‐Retained Mandibular Overdentures: A Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was evaluation of the effect of age, gender, and past prosthetic history (duration of edentulism, number of complete dentures before implant treatment, and number of adjustment appointments) on patients' ratings of satisfaction (comfort, hygiene, retention, appearance, speech, mastication, and overall satisfaction). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, 55 patients who were treated with mandibular overdentures retained by splinted implants from 1998 to 2004 and met the inclusion criteria of the study were selected. Each patient was asked to fill out a questionnaire to evaluate his/her general satisfaction with the implant prostheses and other aspects of satisfaction such as comfort, aesthetic, function, and hygiene. Data were analyzed using a marginal model and the generalized estimating equations methodology to assess the relationship between the scores and the patients' demographic and past prosthetic histories. Significance was accepted at 5% and expressed as p values and odds ratio (OR). RESULTS: Gender had significant correlation with comfort (p < .0001). Years of being edentulous prior to implant/prosthetic treatment had direct effects on the general satisfaction and satisfaction of comfort (p < .01). One extra denture used before implant treatment resulted in less comfort (p < .01) and poorer function (p < .001). Elders were more satisfied with aesthetic (OR = 0.96) and comfort (OR = 2.96). Number of adjustment appointments had a positive correlation with comfort (p < .001) and a negative correlation with satisfaction of aesthetic (p < .001). CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrated that satisfaction was correlated with age, gender, and past prosthetic history in the patients rehabilitated with the implant-supported overdentures.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".