A Qualitative Study on Patients' Perceptions of Two Types of Attachments for Implant Overdentures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this qualitative study was to gain a deeper understanding of patient perceptions of wearing implant-retained overdentures with ball-shaped or cylindrical attachment systems. Twenty-two wearers of implant-supported overdentures participated in this qualitative study based on a randomized crossover clinical trial that aimed to compare a cylindrical attachment and a ball attachment. In phase I of the study, group A experienced ball attachments (n = 11) and group B Locator attachments (n = 11) for 1 year. Afterward, in phase II, the attachments were changed; group A received Locator attachments and group B received ball attachments. One week after the attachment's replacement, semistructured individual interviews were conducted. All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. The analysis was guided by thematic content analysis. Most of the patients from both groups preferred the attachment they received in phase II, regardless the type. A major theme raised by the participants to justify their preference between the attachment types was prosthesis retention/stability, sometimes considered as a positive and other times as a negative factor. Other themes were also explored: oral function, pain, hygiene, previous experiences, confidence on the dentist's work, and esthetic. Aspects related to the retention/stability of the overdentures are the main concerns associated with the perceptions of most patients treated with implant overdentures regardless of the type of attachment. Adequate retention level should be identified and adjusted on an individual basis and maintained overtime as possible. Therefore, follow-up appointments should be planned for readjustment of the attachment's retention. Overretention should be avoided.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".