Full mouth rehabilitation with maxillary equator® attachment over denture and mandibular hybrid denture - A case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Implant-supported prosthodontic rehabilitation of total edentulism remains the most complex restorative challenges. The main reason being the number of variables that affect both the aesthetic and functional aspects of the prosthesis. A hybrid denture or the ‘Toronto prosthesis’ is one that is fabricated over a metal framework and retained by screws threaded into implants. This article presents the fabrication of implant-retained maxillary Equator® attachment overdenture opposing mandibular implant-retained hybrid prosthesis. A total of four implants (Equinox® Myriad plus) were placed the maxillary arch and six implants (Equinox® Myriad plus) in the mandibular arch. The patient's occlusal vertical dimension, centric relation, aesthetics and phonetics were determined and maintained throughout the restorative process. This case report describes the management of a completely edentulous patient with a mandibular implant-supported fixed prosthesis and maxillary implant-retained overdenture with Equator® attachment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".