Immediate loading of four interforaminal implants supporting a locator‐retained mandibular overdenture in the elderly. Results of a 3‐year randomized, controlled, prospective clinical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implant-retained overdentures have become a standard option for the prosthetic treatment of the edentulous mandible in the elderly. PURPOSE: This prospective study aimed to compare immediate and conventional loading of four interforaminal implants supporting a Locator-retained mandibular overdenture in elderly patients regarding implant survival, implant stability, and implant-related complications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study population comprised 20 completely edentulous patients (11 males) aged 60 years and older with severe mandible resorption. Each patient received four interforaminal implants (Neoss Ltd., Harrogate, UK). Following randomization, implants were loaded either immediately after dental implant surgery or 3 months after implant placement with the Locator-abutment system. At follow-up visits 3, 6 12, 24, and 36 months after loading, implant stability was evaluated with Periotest and Ostell. RESULTS: Twenty patients received 80 implants. In eight patients, 32 implants were loaded immediately. Two patients had to be switched from the immediate to the conventional loading group due to insufficient primary stability (≤30 Ncm). Implant survival was similar in both groups after 36 months. No implant was lost. Decreasing Periotest, and accordingly, increasing Ostell measurements indicated adequate osseointegration in both groups. The course of treatment was not significantly different in the two groups. There were comparable incidences of postoperative complaints like swelling, hematoma, or wound dehiscence, as well as need for prosthetic treatment due to abutment loosening or occlusal discrepancies. Incidence of pressure marks and number of patient visits were significantly higher in the conventional loading group. CONCLUSION: With sufficient primary stability, immediate loading of four interforaminal implants in the edentulous mandible might be the preferential choice in the elderly, reducing total treatment time, and number of patient visits.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".