Retención y desgaste de tres sistemas de “attachment” para prótesis totales mandibulares sobre implantes – estudio in vitro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Las sobredentaduras mandibulares retenidas por dos implantes son reconocidas como la primera opcion de tratamiento para pacientes edentulos, tal como recoge la Universidad McGill (Canada) en su declaracion de consenso publicada en 2002 y la sociedad britanica para el estudio de la odontologia protesica, en su declaracion de consenso de York, publicada en 2009. Al compararlas con protesis completas convencionales, proporcionan una mayor satisfaccion del paciente, una mayor capacidad masticatoria y una preservacion de altura de la cresta residual. El objetivo de este trabajo es evaluar la durabilidad y capacidad de retencion de attachments a largo del tiempo en inclinacion de 0°, 10° e 20° y en saliva artificial a 37°C. El diseno experimental tomo en cuenta la existencia de 3 tipos distintos de sistemas de attachments (Clix®: Preat Corporation, Santa Ynez, CA, United States; Dalbo-Plus®: Cendres+ Metaux, Biel/Bienne, Suiza; Locator®: Zest Anchors,Inc ,Escondido, United States), 3 inclinaciones diferentes y uno tipo de saliva artificial ( pH 7). Los 72 attachments fueron testados en una maquina de ensayo de fatiga durante 5400 ciclos (cinco anos) y se registraron los valores de retencion en ocho momentos diferentes (inicio, un mes, seis meses, un ano, dos anos, tres anos, cuatro anos, cinco anos). El analisis de los resultados demostro que la media de retencion (insercion y desinsercion) de los attachments fue siempre mayor en inclinacion de 0° do que en inclinacion de 20°. Todos los attachments del estudio han perdido valor maximo de retencion. La inclinacion influye en el valor de la fuerza intrinseca de cada attachment y tiene influencia en su durabilidad a lo largo del tiempo.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".