Mandibular Overdentures Retained by Two Mini‐Implants: A Seven‐Year Retention and Satisfaction Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patients with atrophic edentulous ridges generally have problems with retention, therapeutic satisfaction, and comfort with their complete dentures. An alternative treatment to assist in improving retention and stability involves the use of mini-implants. The aim of this study was to evaluate the retention of mandibular overdentures connected to two mini-implants and overall patient satisfaction with them. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven patients with atrophic mandibular ridges (Type 4D Misch classification), aged 62 to 74 years old were rehabilitated with complete dentures. In each patient, two mini-implants measuring 15 or 13 mm in length and 1.8 mm in diameter were placed. After 15 days, overdentures were connected to the mini-implants with O-ring attachments. In each patient, retention of the overdentures was measured, and a survey of therapeutic satisfaction before and after connection to the mini-implants was administered. Prosthesis retention was measured with a digital dynamometer at 1 month, 6 months, and 2, 3, 5, and 7 years after mini-implant placement. Patient satisfaction was assessed with a survey. Data were analyzed with Student's t-test (satisfaction survey) and the Friedman test (retention measurements and satisfaction survey). RESULTS: The initial retention values (0.34 to 0.63 N without mini-implants) varied significantly (p ≤ 0.050). These values were less than the subsequent measurements of 3.92 to 9.64 N, taken after placement of the mini-implants and connecting them to the dentures. Satisfaction was good to very good over the 7-year observation period. Mucosa and peri-implant bone showed no pathological changes. CONCLUSIONS: In this limited sample size clinical study the results indicated that after connecting mandibular overdentures to two mini-implants, patient satisfaction significantly increased and retention significantly improved during the 7-year observation period.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".