Comparison of three-implant-supported fixed dentures and two-implant-retained overdentures in the edentulous mandible: a pilot study of treatment efficacy and patient satisfaction.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The mandibular two-implant overdenture has been shown to be a highly successful treatment. However, overdenture patients who desire a fixed prosthesis may not be satisfied with a removable overdenture. This prospective study sought to compare prosthetic outcomes, patient satisfaction, and survival rates of implants between two-implant-supported overdentures (IODs) and three-implant-supported fixed dentures (ISFDs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty completely edentulous patients were randomly and equally assigned to two groups. New conventional complete dentures were made, and the mandibular denture was used as a surgical guide during implant placement. Implants were placed in one stage, followed by a mandibular denture soft reline (provisional loading). Ball attachments were inserted at 8 weeks, and ISFDs were delivered at 16 weeks. IODs were connected to the attachments at 8 weeks, using each patients's existing denture. The definitive ISFDs were fabricated using computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture milled titanium frameworks and acrylic resin base and teeth. Patient satisfaction and panoramic radiographs were investigated at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Both treatments had significant and positive effects on patient satisfaction and quality of life. None of the 50 implants placed had failed at 12 months of follow-up; therefore, the implant survival rate was 100%. Prosthetic complications were generally rare and easily manageable. CONCLUSIONS: Both the treatment modalities-the ISFD supported by three implants and the IOD supported by two implants-significantly and similarly improved patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life, and prosthetic complications were relatively rare for both treatments. Three implants can be used to support a mandibular fixed prosthesis; however, a longer observation period is needed to validate this treatment modality.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".