Expansion of Mandibular Knife‐Edge Ridge and Simultaneous Implant Placement to Retain Overdentures: One‐Year Clinical and Radiographic Results of a Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of two implants placed in expanded mandibular knife-edge ridge and implants placed in unexpanded ridges to retain overdentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen completely edentulous patients with knife-edge ridges at canine areas of the mandible received two implants using the ridge expansion technique (study group, SG). Expansion was performed using piezoelectric corticotomy, and self-threading expanders. The control group (CG) comprised patients who received two-implant at canine areas without ridge expansion but were all case matched to SG and served as historical cohort. In both groups, mandibular overdentures were connected to the implants with Locator attachments 3 months after implant placement. Clinical (Plaque index; PI, Gingival index; GI, Probing depth; PD, and implant stability; ISQ) and radiographic (Vertical bone loss; VBL) parameters were recorded at time of overdenture insertion (base line, T0), 6 months (T6), and 12 months (T12) after insertion. RESULTS: The cumulative success rates were 100% and 96.4% for CG and SG, respectively, without significant difference between groups. All tested parameters increased significantly with advance of time in both groups. There was no significant difference in PI, GI, PD, and ISQ between groups. However, SG recorded significant higher VBL than CG at T6 and T12. CONCLUSION: Expansion of mandibular knife edge ridge and simultaneous placement of implants to retain overdentures is associated with clinic and radiographic outcomes comparable to implants placed in unexpanded ridges after 1 year. However, long term randomized controlled trials with sufficient sample size are still needed to ensure the findings of the present study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".