Kostenanalyse implantatgestützter Unterkieferdeckprothesen und konventioneller Totalprothesen in einer randomisierten klinischen Studie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
and Conventional Denture Treatment. Sixty edentulous patients between 65 and 75 years participated in a randomized clinical trial. All patients received a new maxillary complete denture and either a mandibular conventional denture (n = 30) or a two-implant overdenture on ball attachments (n = 30). A resource-based micro costing of direct and indirect costs (e.g. expenses and time cost to patients) of all scheduled and unscheduled visits was conducted through one year following delivery of the prostheses. Results: Mean direct costs (1999 Canadian dollars, CAN $) for scheduled visits in the implant overdenture group (IOD) and the conventional denture group (CD) were CAN $ 2,332 (′ 112) and CAN $ 814 (′ 51), respectively, and mean indirect costs were CAN $ 1,150 (′ 54) for IOD and CAN $ 810 (′ 73) CD. The differences between the two groups were significant (p < 0.001). Twenty-six patients in each group had unscheduled visits during the study at a median (range) direct cost for the IOD of CAN $ 85 (1085) and CAN $ 64 (1120) for the CD. Median indirect costs for unscheduled visits for these patients in the IOD and the CD were CAN $ 163 (1135) and CAN $ 202 (1324), respectively. These differences were not significant (p = 0.472 and p = 0.687). Mean total costs of the IOD were CAN $ 4,245 (95 % CI = 4,037 to 4,454) and CAN $ 2,316 (95% CI = 2,028 to 2,603) for the CD, and the between group difference was significant (p < 0.001). The direct cost of mandibular two-implant overdenture treatment was 2.4 times higher than conventional denture treatment. When indirect costs were added, the implant to conventional total cost ratio estimate was 1.8, which is less than in previous studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".