Splinting of Mini Implants Used to Assist Complete Mandibular Overdentures with Two Different Bar Designs: A 3-Year Clinical and Radiographic Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose : Clinical and radiographic evaluation of early loaded four splinted mini dental implants (MDIs) with two different bar designs for assisting mandibular complete overdenture. Materials and Methods: Twenty completely edentulous patients (10 males and 10 females) with mean age of 52.5 years old were selected for this study.All patients received four mini implants in the mandibular interforaminal area. Patients were assigned into two equal groups according to splinting bar design, where it was milled bar for Group I and round bar joint for Group II. Maxillary complete denture was constructed for each patient against implant assisted mandibular overdenture. Periimplant soft tissue health parameters were monitored and cervical bone height changes were evaluated through standardized periapical radiographs just after loading of mini implants and 6, 12, 24 and 36 months later as represented by (T 0), (T6), (T12), (T24), and (T 36) respectively. Results: Insignificant difference of all peri-implant soft tissue health arameters was observed over time within each group and between the two groups at all observational times. Peri-implant marginal bone resorption was significantly higher in group I in comparison to group II at T 6, T12 and T36. Significant difference was found between T0 and T6 in both groups and also between T24 and T36 in group I. Conclusions: Both milled and round bar splints can provide a satisfactory clinical outcome for early loaded mini implants assisting mandibular complete overdenture. However, splinting with milled bars seems to be associated with a higher rate of peri-implant marginal bone loss.
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 | 0.001 | 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".