Evolution of in vivo assessed retention forces in one‐piece mini dental implant‐retained mandibular overdentures: 5‐Year follow‐up of a prospective clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The evolution of retention forces in one-piece mini dental implants (MDIs) retaining implant overdentures (IODs) is of major importance, as the male parts cannot be exchanged, due to the implant design. PURPOSE: To report the evolution of retention forces of one-piece MDIs, retaining mandibular IODs with ball/ O-ring attachments during 5 years assessed in vivo. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four MDIs were installed in the interforaminal region and immediately loaded using the existing mandibular complete denture. Directly post-op, at the 1-year and the 5-year follow-up, the retention forces were assessed with a validated strain gauge at each implant site separately. RESULTS: At the male part, changes could only be observed at implant site 34: During the first year, there was a statistically significant increase, whereas the retention forces were decreased at the 5-year follow-up. At the female part, retention forces decreased significantly over time. Baseline values could be reestablished by exchanging the O-rings. The changes of the retention forces were more obvious in the posterior, compared to the anterior implants. CONCLUSIONS: Retention forces at the female part decrease significantly over time, when retaining mandibular IODs by MDIs with ball/ O-ring attachments. Baseline values can be reestablished by exchanging the O-rings. At the male part, changes of retention forces depend on the implant location.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".