A Prospective Randomized Study on the Immediate Loading of Mandibular Overdentures Supported by One or Two Implants; A 3 Year Follow‐Up Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The objective of the study was to evaluate and compare treatments with mandibular overdentures supported by one or two immediately placed implants 3 years after loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six edentulous subjects were eligible for inclusion. Using a random sampling system, one or two implants were placed in the mandible. Separate ball attachments were connected to the implants, and the denture was relined and delivered the day of surgery with the retentive components incorporated in the denture base. At the follow-up examinations peri-implant bone levels, implant and denture stability/retention, and need for maintenance and adjustments were evaluated. Moreover, the OHIP-EDENT questionnaire was used to measure patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Nineteen subjects (10 men and 9 women) with a mean age of 56 years were available for the 3-year follow-up examination. The group with 1 implant (Group 1) consisted of 11 subjects (5 women and 6 men) while the remaining 8 (5 women and 3 men) belonged to Group2. Nine subjects had been excluded during the first year due to failing implants, 6 had moved, 1 had died, and 1 reported severe illness. No implant failures between the 12-and 36 month follow-up were observed. The mean peri-implant bone change was.86 mm and the Implant Stability Quotient showed only minor changes with no significant difference between the groups when compared with the 12-month follow-up. Patient satisfaction scores increased significantly when compared with the baseline values and continued to be high for both groups and need for denture maintenance was low. CONCLUSION: No significant differences were found between subjects in the two groups with respect to implant survival and peri implant bone loss, and patient satisfaction scores continued to be high for both groups. Need for denture maintenance was low in both groups.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".