MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3045217840 · doi:10.3290/j.qi.a44928

Bone loss in the anterior edentulous maxilla opposing two-implant-supported overdentures vs complete dentures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

2020· review· en· W3045217840 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenturesDentistryMedicineMaxillaImplantMeta-analysisOrthodonticsAnterior maxillaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate bone loss in the anterior edentulous maxilla restored with maxillary complete dentures and opposed by mandibular two-implant-supported overdentures (2-IODs) or complete dentures. METHOD AND MATERIALS: A systematic search was conducted using the Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases for studies investigating bone loss in the anterior edentulous maxilla with mandibular 2-IODs or complete dentures. Two reviewers assessed the eligibility of studies and risk of bias assessment was conducted according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A meta-analysis was performed using statistical software to estimate weighted mean difference in bone loss with 95% confidence interval (CI). The level of significance was defined as P value (< .05). RESULTS: A total of 2,510 studies were identified through electronic and manual searching. Six studies were selected and compounded for quantitative synthesis of 163 patients. Bone loss in the anterior edentulous maxilla was greater with 2-IODs than with complete dentures. The total estimate of weighted mean difference between 2-IODs and complete dentures was -1.40 (95% CI -3.12 to 0.31). However, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .11). The data were heterogenous across the studies based on chi-square statistics (χ2 [df = 7] = 52.75, P < .0001; τ2 = 5.53, I2 = 95.21%). In addition, the impact of implant splinting on bone loss was not significant (P > .29). None of the included studies were considered to be at high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the current systematic review and meta-analysis, the estimate of bone loss in the anterior edentulous maxilla was greater with 2-IODs than with complete dentures. However, the difference was not statistically significant. A well-designed randomized clinical study needs to be conducted to validate the results of this systematic review.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.027
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→