Prosthetic complications and maintenance of different attachments used to stabilize mandibular 2‐implant overdentures in patients with atrophied ridges. A 5‐year randomized controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This randomized clinical trial aimed to evaluate prosthetic complications and maintenance of different attachments used to stabilize mandibular 2-implant overdentures in patients with atrophied ridges. METHODS: Ninety edentulous patients with a maladaptive capacity of wearing conventional dentures due to mandibular ridge atrophy received 2-implants in the canine regions using computer-guided surgery. The patients were randomly assigned into three groups; (1) Bar group: overdentures were connected to the implants with bar/clip attachments, (2) Telescopic group: overdentures were connected to the implants using a resilient telescopic attachment, and (3) Stud group: overdentures were connected to the implants with resilient stud (Locator) attachments. Prosthetic complications of attachments, mandibular overdentures, and maxillary dentures, and soft tissue complications of mandibular overdentures and maxillary dentures were evaluated 1 year (T1), 3 years (T3), and 5 years (T5) after denture insertion. RESULTS: The majority of prosthetic and soft tissue complications for all groups occurred in the first year. The most frequent prosthetic complication was wear/distortion of retentive components of locator and telescopic attachments and activation of clips of bar attachment. The bar group showed the highest incidence of overdenture relines, fractures, hyperplasia, maxillary denture mucositis, and soreness. The telescopic group showed the highest incidence of screw loosening, teeth wear/fracture, maxillary denture relines, fractures, teeth wear, teeth separation, and flappy ridges. The stud group recorded the highest incidence of wear and replacement of retentive components. CONCLUSION: For 2-implant overdentures in patients with atrophied mandibles, bar attachments showed the highest incidence of complications related to mandibular overdentures, telescopic attachments showed the highest incidence of complications related to maxillary dentures, and stud attachments showed the highest incidence of complications related to the attachment components.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".