MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3023393035 · doi:10.1111/cid.12902

Immediate vs conventional loading of Facility‐Equator system in mandibular overdenture wearers: 1‐year RCT with clinical, biological, and functional evaluation

2020· article· en· W3023393035 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alessandra Juliê Schuster, Raissa Micaella Marcello‐Machado, Amália Machado Bielemann, Anna Paula da Rosa Possebon, Otacílio Luiz Chagas‐Júnior, Fernanda Faot

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMasticatory forceDentistryImplant stability quotientImplantRandomized controlled trialMcNemar's testQuality of life (healthcare)OrthodonticsDental implantSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The use of immediate loading (IML) is still poorly explored in elderly patients and implant‐retained mandibular overdenture (IMO) wearers. For this reason, more comparisons to conventional loading (CL) are required. Purpose To evaluate the clinical, biological, functional, and oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQOL) influence of CL and IML loading on elders wearing IMO retained by the Facility‐Equator system up to 1 year after implant installation. Material and Methods Twenty edentulous patients received two narrow diameter implants in the mandible; the loading type (CL or IML) was randomized. The clinical parameters were monitored along with prosthetic events, marginal bone loss (MBL) and bone level change (BLC), implant stability quotients (ISQ), masticatory performance outcomes, and Interleukin 1 beta (IL‐1β) and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF‐α) levels in the peri‐implant crevicular fluid during the first year of loading. The OHRQoL was assessed via the Oral Health Impact Profile‐EDENT questionnaire. Data were analyzed by the Mann‐Whitney, χ 2 , Wilcoxon paired, and McNemar tests. Results After 1 year, MBL, BLC and ISQ were statistically identical (P > .05) in the CL and IML groups. The probing depth at 12 months in the CL group (2.19 mm) was higher than in the IML group (1.29 mm; P ≤ .0001). TNF‐α was 33.6% higher in the CL group at 6 months ( P = .043), while IL‐1β was significantly higher in the IML group up to 6 months. The survival rate was 90% in the CL group and 85% in the IML group; 33 prosthetic events occurred in CL group and 23 in IML group. Conclusions After 12 months, both loading protocols are viable and result in similar clinical, biological, functional, and OHRQOL outcomes. However, IML generates better adaptation of the peri‐implant tissues, faster improvement in OHRQoL and fewer prosthetic intercurrences than CL.

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)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.233
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→