MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4282934306 · doi:10.1111/cid.13105

Peri‐implant tissue health and patient satisfaction of vertical versus inclined posterior implants used to support overdentures with bar attachments. A one‐year randomized trial

2022· article· en· W4282934306 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christine Raouf Micheal Ibrahim, SallySayed Awad, Ahmed Habib, Moustafa Abdou ELsyad

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImplantDentistryVisual analogue scaleDental prosthesisOrthodonticsPatient satisfactionProsthesisSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate peri-implant tissue health and patient satisfaction of vertical and inclined posterior implants for mandibular bar overdentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty edentulous participants received four implants in the interforaminal area of the mandible. The patients were randomly assigned into two equal groups; (1) vertical group (control): all implants were inserted vertically parallel to each other. Inclined group (study): the anterior implants were placed vertically, and the posterior implants were tilted 30° distally. Hader bar attachment with two 7 mm-distal cantilevers (vertical group) and without cantilevers (inclined group) was used to connect the implants to mandibular overdentures. Peri-implant tissue health (Plaque [PL] and gingival [GI] indices, pocket depth [PD], and crestal bone loss [CBL]) were evaluated after denture insertion (T0), 6 (T6), and 12 (T12) months after insertion. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using a visual analog scale after 12 months. RESULTS: At T12, the vertical group showed significantly higher PL, PD, and CBL than the inclined group for anterior (p < 0.037) and posterior (p < 0.017) implants. The vertical group showed significantly higher GI than the inclined group for anterior implants (p = 0.003), and the inclined group showed significantly higher GI than the vertical group for posterior implants (p = 0.016). The inclined group showed significantly higher scores for general satisfaction (p = 0.049), prosthesis as a part of you (p = 0.013), appearance (p < 0.001), stability (p = 0.002), ease of cleaning (p < 0.001), and comfort (p = 0.001) than the vertical group. CONCLUSION: Inclined posterior implants used to support mandibular bar overdentures are recommended than vertical implants, as it was associated with improved patient satisfaction and peri-implant tissue health.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→