MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914881019 · doi:10.1111/clr.13408

A within‐subject clinical trial on the conversion of mandibular two‐implant to three‐implant overdenture: Patient‐centered outcomes and willingness to pay

2019· article· en· W2914881019 on OpenAlexafffund
Elham Emami, Aminah Alesawy, Pierre de Grandmont, Daiane Cerutti‐Kopplin, Naoki Kodama, Mélanie Menassa, Pierre Rompré, Robert Durand

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Oral Implants Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDENTSPLY ImplantsSaudi Arabian Cultural Bureau
KeywordsImplantMedicineDentistryProsthesisOrthodonticsMann–Whitney U testPatient satisfactionExact testDental prosthesisSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.255
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Oral Implants ResearchSame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207