MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4252937423 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-61066/v2

Effects of immediate and delayed loading protocols on marginal bone loss around implants in unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W4252937423 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wei Liu, He Cai, Junjiang Zhang, Jian Wang, Lei Sui

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisDentistryImplantCochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trialCohortCohort studySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Immediate loading has recently been introduced into unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures for the management of edentulous patients due to their increasing demand on immediate aesthetics and function. However, there is still a scarcity of meta-analytical evidence on the efficacy of immediate loading compared to delayed loading in unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures. The purpose of this study was to compare the marginal bone loss (MBL) around implants between immediate and delayed loading of unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and cohort studies quantitatively comparing the MBL around implants between immediate loading protocol (ILP) and delayed loading protocol (DLP) of unsplinted mandibular overdentures were included. A systematic search was carried out in PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases on April 28, 2020. “Grey” literature was also searched. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the pooled MBL of two different loading protocols of unsplinted mandibular overdentures through weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. The subgroup analysis was performed between different attachment types ( i.e. Locator attachment vs. ball anchor). The risk of bias within and across studies were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and Egger's test. Results: Of 305 records, five RCTs and two cohort studies were included and evaluated, which totally contained 191 participants with a follow-up of no less than 12 months. The MBL of ILP group showed no significant difference with that of DLP group (WMD0.04, CI -0.13 to 0.21, P > .05). Subgroup analysis revealed similar results between the two different loading groups restored with Locator attachments or ball anchors ( P > .05). Apart from one RCT (20%) with a high risk of bias, four RCTs (80%) showed a moderate risk of bias. Two prospective cohort studies were proved with acceptable quality. Furthermore, the Egger's test indicated no significant bias among seven included studies ( P > .05). Conclusions: For unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures, the MBL around implants after ILP seems comparable to that of implants after DLP. Immediate loading may be a promising alternative to delayed loading for the management of unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.041
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.363 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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