Maintenance and risk factors for fractures of overdentures using immediately loaded conventional diameter or mini implants with Locator abutments: A cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fractures in mandibular implant-retained overdentures are a common complication. However, little is known on the related risk factors and outcome differences when using two conventional diameter or two mini implants. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was first, to evaluate the required maintenance and complications with the overdentures and second, to analyze risk factors for overdenture fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cohort study was conducted in edentulous patients with complete dentures. Patients received either two conventional (4.1 mm in diameter) and two mini (2.9 mm or less in diameter) implants, based on available buccal-lingual ridge width. All implants were immediately loaded with mandibular overdentures retained by Locator abutments. The number of prosthodontic after care visits (scheduled and unscheduled) were recorded and compared between the two implant diameter groups. Fracture occurrence was the primary outcome variable. Risk estimates were presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The ORs were adjusted for potential clinical confounders (ie, necessity of relining, matrix recapture, abutment loosening, implant diameter, height of the Locator, and retention force). RESULTS: A total of 50 edentulous patients were analyzed. One conventional diameter and three mini implants failed within a 1-year follow-up period. Prosthetic maintenance requirements for overdentures on both implant diameter groups were comparable. A total of 12 overdenture fractures (four in the mini implant group and eight in the conventional diameter group) occurred. Adjusted OR (AOR) analysis showed a significant association between abutment loosening and overdenture fracture (AOR = 12.00, 95% CI = 1.11-129.45; P = .041). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the present findings suggest that implant diameter does not affect number of prosthetic maintenance and complications, and that abutment loosening is a risk factor for overdenture fractures, regardless of the implant diameter used.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".