A within‐subject clinical trial on the conversion of mandibular two‐implant to three‐implant overdenture: Patient‐centered outcomes and willingness to pay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact of adding a third midline implant with stud attachment to a mandibular two-implant overdenture on patient-oriented outcomes. METHODS: In this pre-post design clinical trial, following the standard procedures, mandibular two-implant overdentures of 17 edentulous individuals (61.9 ± 6.6 years) were converted to three-implant overdentures by adding a stud attachment to an unloaded midline implant. Patient-oriented outcomes included patient expectations and satisfaction with implant overdenture as well as willingness to pay the cost of conversion. Data were collected at baseline and at the 6-week follow-up using visual analog and binary scales as well as open-ended questions. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, Spearman's correlation, Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney U test, and the exact sign test. RESULTS: After connecting the third midline implant to the mandibular two-implant overdenture, there was a statistically significant decrease in the anteroposterior movement (p = 0.005) as evaluated by clinicians. Moreover, study participants reported an increase in perceived stability of the overdenture (95% CI; 0.68-1.00, p = 0.002) and in their ability to speak (95% CI; 0.63-1.00, p = 0.008). The addition of a third implant met the expectations of 94% of patients in regard to lower denture stability, 100% for retention, and 82.4% for comfort. The mandibular three-implant overdenture increased patient general satisfaction over a short period of time, but this improvement was not statistically significant. About 80% of patients would recommend this type of prosthesis to their peers but only 47% of them would agree to pay a large increase in the cost of treatment compared to a two-implant overdenture. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a midline third implant to an existing mandibular two-implant overdenture resulted in several improved patient-reported outcomes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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".