<scp>Patient‐based</scp> outcomes with conventional or <scp>mini‐implants</scp> immediately loaded with locator‐retained mandibular overdentures: A cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known on the effect of varying implant diameters, especially with mini implants (ie, less than 3 mm in diameter), on oral health-related quality of life (OHrQoL). PURPOSE: To compare OHrQoL and satisfaction in patients with mandibular overdentures immediately retained by either two conventional or two mini-implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Edentulous patients receiving immediately loaded overdentures retained by Locators on either two conventional diameter (4.1 mm) or two mini (2.9 mm or less) implants were selected based on available buccal-lingual ridge width in the intraforaminal area. Two questionnaires were used (Oral Health Impact Profile-14 [OHIP-14]; and Denture Satisfaction Questionnaire [DSQ]) to determine OHrQoL and overall denture satisfaction. Questionnaires were filled out at six different time points up to a 1-year follow-up. Mann-Whitney U test was used for group comparisons. Friedman and Wilcoxon tests were used to identify changes within group along the time points. Correlation between OHIP-14 and DSQ was assessed with Spearman test. RESULTS: A total of 48 patients were analyzed and equally distributed to each group. The conventional group presented a significantly smaller change of OHIP functional score from the baseline to the first week of follow-up after surgery (P = .017). In addition, total DSQ scores were significantly higher for the conventional group at 12 weeks (P = .022) and there was a significant difference between groups in satisfaction with mandibular prosthesis at 24 weeks (P = .034). Correlation between OHIP-14 and DSQ was not significant (P > .05). Individual results of each group (ie, within group analysis) over all assessed time points revealed a significant OHrQoL (P = .001 for conventional, P = .006 for mini-implants) and satisfaction (P < .001 for both groups) improvement in both groups. CONCLUSION: Mandibular overdentures retained by two conventional or mini-implants lead to a significant and comparable improvements in OHrQoL and satisfaction over a 1-year follow-up.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".