3D printing vs traditional workflow for the fabrication of mandibular implant overdentures: study protocol for a mixed-methods cross-over RCT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Complete tooth loss is a significant global oral health issue, particularly impacting older individuals with lower socioeconomic status. Computer-assisted technologies enhance oral healthcare access by the elderly. Despite promising in vitro reports on digital denture materials, evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is lacking to verify their performance. This cross-over RCT will investigate whether 3D-printed implant-retained mandibular overdentures (IMO) are more satisfactory for edentulous seniors than those made through traditional methods. METHODS/DESIGN: We will recruit 26 completely edentulous participants (any sex/gender) based on the following eligibility criteria: age ≥ 60 years, no tooth extraction in the past 12 months, two implants in the lower jaw, and need for new dentures in both jaws. Each participant will receive two denture pairs, either manufactured by 3D printing or traditionally, to be worn in a random order. A timeline of 3 months with each denture pair will be considered for outcome assessment (total: 6 months). Patient satisfaction with dentures will be measured by the McGill Denture Satisfaction Questionnaire. We will evaluate other patient-reported outcomes (including oral health-related quality of life) as well as clinician-assessed quality and cost. At the end of the trial, participants will choose which denture pair they wish to keep and interviewed about their experiences with the 3D-printed IMO. The quantitative and qualitative data will be incorporated through an explanatory mixed-methods strategy. A final quantitative assessment will happen after 12 months with the preferred IMO to assess the long-term performance and maintenance needs. DISCUSSION: This mixed-methods RCT will explore patient experiences with 3D-printed IMOs, aiming to assess the potential for altering clinical practice and dental public health policies. Our results will inform policies by showing whether 3D printing offers comparable outcomes at lower costs, facilitating greater access to oral care for the elderly. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06155630, Registered on 04 December 2023. https://classic. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT06155630.
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 | 0.048 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.011 |
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".