Effect of simulated masticatory loading on the retention of stud attachments for implant overdentures
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed the effect of simulated mastication on the retention of two stud attachment systems for 2-implants overdentures. Sixteen specimens, each simulating an edentulous ridge with implants and an overdenture were divided into two groups, according to the attachment system: Group I (Nobel Biocare ball-socket attachments) and Group II (Locator attachments). Retention forces were measured before and after 400,000 simulated masticatory loads in a customised device. Data were compared by two-way anova followed by Bonferroni test (α = 0·05). Group I presented significantly lower retention forces (Newtons) than Group II at baseline (10·6 ± 3·6 and 66·4 ± 16·0, respectively). However, differences were not significant after 400,000 loads (7·9 ± 4·3 and 21·6 ± 17·0). The number of cycles did not influence the measurements in Group I, whereas a non-linear descending curve was found for Group II. It was concluded that simulated mastication resulted in minor changes for the ball attachment tested. Nevertheless, it reduced the retention of Locator attachments to 40% of the baseline values, what suggests that mastication is a major factor associated with maintenance needs for this system.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 it