Mini-Implants for Mandibular Overdentures: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis alongside a Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mandibular overdentures retained by 2 conventional implants have been considered the standard of care for complete edentulism, according to the McGill and York consensuses. However, many patients refuse this treatment modality due to the associated costs and postsurgical discomfort. Mini-implants have the chance to overcome these limitations due to their potentially lower costs and a relatively uncomplicated surgical technique. This study compared treatment costs and incremental cost-effectiveness following the insertion of mini-implants (2 or 4) or 2 standard-size implants for the retention of mandibular overdentures, by means of a randomized clinical trial. In total, 120 edentulous participants (mean age 59.5 ± 8.5 y) were randomly allocated into 3 groups according to treatment received: 4 mini-implants (group 1), 2 mini-implants (group 2), or 2 standard implants (group 3). Treatment costs and outcomes (Oral Health Impact Profile for Edentulous [OHIP-EDENT] and satisfaction with the dentures) were evaluated after 6 mo. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each intervention in terms of cost per 1-point change in patient outcomes. A 1-way sensitivity analysis was performed considering a 95% confidence interval variation in cost and outcome parameters, represented in tornado diagrams. Overall treatment cost was the lowest for group 2 (average cost: US$318.08), followed by group 1 (US$510.75) and group 3 (US$566.13). Groups did not differ in terms of the length of unscheduled appointments and time spent by participants. In summary, our findings indicate that mandibular overdentures retained by 2 or 4 mini-implants are less costly compared to 2-implant overdentures. Despite the lower costs of overdentures retained by 2 mini-implants, those retained by 4 mini-implants showed further improvement in patient-reported outcomes and reduced costs compared to standard implants ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01411683). Knowledge Transfer Statement: This report shows that mini-implant retained overdentures are less costly than overdenture treatment on 2 standard-sized implants. Treatment with 2 mini-implants is an effective procedure to substantially save resources, whereas treatment with 4 mini-implants provides better results from a patient perspective combined with slightly reduced costs compared to the treatment with 2 standard implants. Therefore, mini-implant overdentures may be effective and more accessible than overdentures on 2 standard-size implants for those with limited incomes.
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 | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".