A Clinical and Radiographic 3 Years Retrospective Study for Two Types of Locator Retained Mandibular Implant Overdenture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This retrospective study aimed to evaluate peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL) and prosthetic complications between two types of locator attachments in two implant-supported mandibular overdentures. MATERIAL AND METHOD: From the archived records, information about patients who had two implants inserted utilizing two different types of locator attachments into the interforaminal region between November 2019 and December 2023 was obtained. Overall, 60 patients (Total = 120 implants) from the archive records of the Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, with ages ranging from 40 to 60 (mean age 50), were included in the study. Group I (control): Overall, 30 patients who would be delivered mandibular implant overdenture using conventional locator attachments. Group II (study): Overall, 30 patients who would be delivered mandibular implant overdenture using RTx locator attachments. After the placement of the mandibular overdenture (T0), 6 months (T6), 12 months (T12), and 3 years (T3) later, the marginal bone loss (MBL) was assessed. Prosthetic complications were evaluated for both groups 3 years after prosthetic delivery. RESULT: A statistically significant increase (p = 0.000) was found in MBL scores at all observation times between both groups. Group II showed a statistical increase in MBL than Group I. For prosthetic complications, no significant difference was found between both groups. Group II showed more matrix wear than Group I however, it was not statistically significant (p = 0.60). CONCLUSION: Within the limitation of this study, we can conclude the following: Both types of locator attachment (conventional and RTx locator) can be used clinically with no preference concerning the frequency of prosthetic complications. From the MBL perspective, conventional locators are more favorable than RTx locators.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".