CRNC5: Mandibular implant supported removable partial denture: A case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: McGill and York consensus stated that two implants retained overdenture should be the minimum standard to restore mandibular edentulous ridge. However, this option is not without problems but need significant maintenance especially high maintenance of denture base relining and rebasing due to continuing posterior alveolar ridge resorption. Therefore, by preserving the distal end abutments, it provides a vertical occlusal stop and thus might reduce bone resorption. Case Description: A 66-year-old male patient presented to the clinic with complaints of poor stability of his mandibular denture during mastication. Clinical examination revealed unstable mandibular removable partial denture with tooth 38 and 48 abutments. Tooth 48 was diagnosed with pulp necrosis with symptomatic apical periodontitis. After the decision was made to preserve the two abutments, endodontic treatment was completed on tooth 48 by an endodontist. Two implants were placed at the anterior alveolar ridge followed by fabrication of implant supported removable partial denture. Discussion: Implants placement medially and preservation of both distal abutments might influence the amount of forces transfer to the prostheses and subsequently reduce the posterior mandibular ridges remodeling during function. Therefore, occlusal rests and circumferential clasps were incorporated in the implant supported removable partial denture design to increase the retention and yet not cause extra loading on the posterior residual ridge. Conclusion: Implant supported overdenture with the posterior displacement of the denture is a concerning factor for residual ridge resorption. Therefore, in this case report, the distal abutments were preserved to prevent excessive loading to the residual ridge.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".