Minimally invasive approaches for implant‐supported overdentures in the atrophied mandible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The study compares three minimally invasive approaches for the retention of implant supported mandibular complete dentures, particularly focusing on patient satisfaction. BACKGROUND: The McGill Consensus Statement recommends restoration of the edentulous mandible with an overdenture retained on two implants. Alternatively, less invasive treatment concepts with shorter treatment times have been developed for critical cases. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-nine patients (with a total of 78 implants) with advanced mandibular bone atrophy were randomly assigned to three groups: "single standard implant-retained overdentures" (SSO) and "mini-implant-retained overdentures" (MO), which was further subdivided into "two mini-implant-retained overdentures" (TMO) and "four mini-implant-retained overdentures" (FMO). The technical and biological parameters and oral health-related quality of life were evaluated over a 10-year period. Data were analysed for group comparisons and longitudinal trend analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen patients (42%) dropped out during the study period. At the time of follow-up, 98.4% of the implants were in situ. The first need for technical intervention occurred after 3.8 ± 1.1, 4.2 ± 0.9, and 4.6 ± 1.3 years in the TMO, SSO, and FMO groups, respectively. Attachment exchange (39%) was the most frequently performed intervention in all groups. Healthy peri-implant and mucosal conditions were observed in 74% and 40% of patients after 1 and 10 years, respectively. The OHIP-G14 score was 22.6 before implantation, 7.6 at 1 year (effect size [ES]: 1.1), and 5.4 at 10 years (ES: 2.3). CONCLUSION: Irrespective of the minimal concept selected, complete mandibular dentures retained on implants improved the subjective perception of the quality of life. Application of these alternative minimal concepts may be practical in clinical practice.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".