Evaluation in vitro de la rétention, de la perte de rétention et de l’usure de trois systèmes d’attachements axiaux unitaires supra-implantaires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Attachment systems (AS) are commonly use to enhance retention and stability of mandibular overdentures anchored to 1 to 4 implants. The McGill consensus statement recommends two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures (2-IRMO) as the standard choice. Objectives. Identify in the literature the publications on retention, wear, and maintenance for 1 or 2-IRMO. Assess in in vitro studies the initial retention, retention loss, and wear of 3 resilient unsplinted AS for 1-IRMO, two cylindrical (CAS), Locator R-Tx® and Novaloc®, and one ball (BAS). Materials and methods. The literature review was performed on articles selected from the PubMed/Medline database. For the in vitro studies, the initial retention and the retention loss were assessed on an universal testing machine and a chewing machine, the wear on a micro-computer tomography and a binocular magnifier. Results. The systematic review shows that the initial retention force of CAS is higher than BAS, however this advantage decreases over time with wear, without affecting their need for maintenance. In vitro studies show that the initial retention range is similar between BAS and Novaloc® and broader for Locator R-Tx®. The retention loss of Locator R-Tx® and BAS is early and abrupt but it becomes stable quickly over time for BAS. Only Novaloc® show a stable or increase retention. Wear mainly affects the retention device (RD) of AS. Conclusion. Almost all tested RD provide retention force over 5 N which could be sufficient to ensure satisfaction for most patients. The retention loss and wear should be taken into consideration for clinical use (replacement or activation of the RD). Keywords.Attachment systems, ball attachment system, cylindrical attachment system, Implant-retained-overdenture, Retention, Retention loss, Wear
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".