Comparative clinical study of conventional dental implant and mini dental implant‐retained mandibular overdenture: A 5‐ to 8‐Year prospective clinical outcomes in a previous randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To compare the long-term prospective clinical outcomes in a previous randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) of 2 Mini Dental Implant (2MDI), 4 Mini Dental Implant (4MDI), and 2 Conventional Dental Implant (2CDI)-retained mandibular overdenture with follow-up between 5 to 8 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven patients formerly participated in the Comparative Clinical Study of CDI and MDI for Mandibular Overdenture were requested for examination of clinical outcomes. A total of 104 implants were placed with mean follow-up periods 6.64 ± 0.60 years. In Group 1 (2MDI) and Group 2 (4MDI), implants were placed and immediately loaded with Equator® attachments to retained mandibular overdenture. In Group 3 (2CDI), implants were placed and delayed 3 months for denture loading with ball attachment. The success rate, survival rate, clinical implant performance scale (CIP scale), peri-implant tissue status, prosthetic complication, implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone level change (MBLC), and patient satisfactions were analyzed. RESULTS: After 5 to 8 years follow-up, the success rate in Groups 1, 2, and 3 were 90.91%, 93.33%, and 54.55%, respectively. The success rate in Group 3 was significantly lesser than Group 1 (p = 0.016) and Group 2 (p < 0.001). The survival rate in Groups 1, 2, and 3 was 100%, 96.67%, and 90.91%, respectively, and showed no significant differences. Mean ISQ reported no significant differences between groups. Mean MBLC were 0.57 ± 1.19 mm, 0.68 ± 0.90 mm, and 1.55 ± 1.60 mm in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Group 3 reported significantly greater mean MBLC than Group 1 (p = 0.016) and Group 2 (p = 0.011), but Groups 1 and 2 were not significantly differences. The overall patient satisfactions were reported as not significant differences between groups. CONCLUDE: Two MDI-retained mandibular overdentures with immediate loaded protocol performed had favorable clinical outcomes, cost effectiveness, and overall patient satisfactions after 5 to 8 years 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 | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".