Non-splinted attachments for 2-implant supported mandibular overdenture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After extraction of all teeth in mandible, irreversible bone resorption occures and complete dentures do not meet the patients requirements because of retention-stability problems. According to the McGill-consensus, 2-implant supported overdenture should be the standard treatment modality for the edentulous mandible(1). Mandibular overdenture can be retained with different attachment-systems. Selection criteria of the attachment-systems includes cost effect. Patients, who applied Ankara University, Dentistry Faculty, Prosthodontics Department, with total edentulism were treated with 2-implant supported mandibular overdenture opposed to maxillary complete denture(n=5). Age-group of patients were varied between 60-70-year. After oral- and radiographic-examination, 2-implant-supported overdenture in mandible and traditional complete denture in maxilla were planned. Dentures were fabricated with traditional laboratory materials and techniques. Attachment selection for implant-supported overdenture can be classified splinted versus non-splinted. Non-splinted attachments can be subclassified as magnet and stud. Stud-attachments can be ball- or cyclindrical-type. Cyclindirical-type attachments further maybe classified as: Equator, Idocator, Kerator, Locator and Novaloc. Patients could choose their implant systems depending on cost effect of implant and attachment-systems. Chosen implant and attachment systems as: 1.Equator(TAG Dental), 2.Idocator(IDO Biotech by Union Dental), 3.Kerator(MegaGen Implants), 4.Locator(NucleOSS), 5.Novaloc(Straumann Group). Two implants were placed depending on financial situations of the patients and placement of ooseointegrated dental implants ensured the stability-retention of the overdentures. After prosthetic rehabilitation, patients positive response were received as: esthetic improvement, chewing ability, comfort, and social acceptance. Two-implant supported mandibular overdenture treatment could be promising and better alternative to complete dentures for edentulous patients. (1)FeineJS,CarlssonGE,AwadMA et al.The McGill Consensus Statement on Overdentures. Montreal, Quebec, Canada. May 24-25,2002.Int.J.Prosthodont 2002;15:413–414.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".