A 5-Year Randomized Trial to Compare 1 or 2 Implants for Implant Overdentures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hypothesis of this 5-y randomized clinical trial was that there would be no significant difference in the satisfaction of edentulous participants with removable complete overdentures attached to 1 or 2 mandibular implants. Secondary aims were to test changes in satisfaction between and within the groups from baseline to 5 y and differences between the groups in implant survival and prosthodontic maintenance over 5 y. Each of the 86 participants (mean age, 67 y) was randomly allocated to receive either 1 implant in the midline (group 1) or 2 implants in the canine areas (group 2) attached to a mandibular overdenture opposing a maxillary complete denture. Satisfaction was self-assessed by participants on a visual analog scale at baseline prior to implants, as well as at 2 mo and 1, 3, and 5 y with implant overdentures, whereas implant survival and prosthodontic maintenance were assessed by clinical examination. After 5 y, 29 participants in group 1 and 33 in group 2 were available, with most dropouts due to death. Satisfaction with the implant denture after 5 y was significantly (P < 0.001) higher than at baseline in both groups and remained with no significant difference (P = 0.32) between the groups. No implants failed in group 1 but 5 failed before loading in 4 participants in group 2. Most participants required maintenance or occasionally denture replacement, and although differences between the groups were not statistically significant, group 1 experienced almost twice as many fractured dentures usually adjacent to the implant attachment. We conclude that there were no significant differences after 5 y in satisfaction or survival of implants with mandibular overdentures retained by 1 implant or 2 implants. Additional research is required to confirm long-term treatment effectiveness of single-implant dentures and the implications of prosthetic maintenance with implant overdentures (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02117856).
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".