Rotational movements of mandibular two‐implant overdentures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Clinicians have reported that their patients complain that their mandibular two-implant overdentures (IOD) rotate. Therefore, we studied the frequency and severity of rotation of IODs with two-ball attachments, how rotation may influence perceived satisfaction ratings of chewing ability, and the factors that are involved in the rotation of IODs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy-nine participants were recruited and asked to rate their general satisfaction of their IODs, as well as their ability to chew foods, the existence of any mandibular denture rotation, and to what degree denture rotation bothered them. Data on participant sociodemographic, anatomical, and prosthesis characteristics were also collected. Student's t-test and logistic regression analyses were performed to analyze the differences between participants who did (R group) and did not report (NR group) denture rotation. RESULTS: Thirty-seven of 79 participants were aware of rotational movement in their IODs. These patients were significantly less satisfied with their chewing ability than those who felt no rotation (69.1 mm R group vs. 82.9 mm), and discomfort caused by the rotation bothered them moderately (39/100 mm). The multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the arrangement of the anterior teeth and the length of the denture are significantly associated with awareness of denture rotation. Thirty-eight percent in the R group and 31% in the NR group had non-scheduled visits. CONCLUSIONS: Rotational movement with a mandibular two-IOD has a negative effect on perceived chewing ability and is associated with anterior tooth arrangement and denture length.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".