MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of postinsertion adjustments between conventional and immediate complete dentures and their association with denture survival

2025· article· en· W4412074113 on OpenAlexaff
Neena L. D’Souza, Ana Débora Soares de Vasconcelos, Beshr Hajhamid, Eszter Somogyi‐Ganss

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenturesDentistryAssociation (psychology)MedicineOrthodonticsPsychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Patient satisfaction with complete dentures has been linked to the number of postinsertion adjustments. However, evidence on the number of postinsertion appointments and adjustments and their link to denture survival is limited. PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to compare patient demographics, the number of postinsertion appointments and types of adjustments between conventional and immediate complete dentures and their association with denture survival 5 years after insertion of the prosthesis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The records of patients at a university clinic for whom standard and immediate conventional complete dentures were inserted between 2013 and 2015 and followed up for 5 years were examined. The outcome variables included postinsertion appointments, types of major and minor adjustments, and denture survival. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics for data summarization and chi-squared and Fisher exact tests for categorical variables. Survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier, Cox regression) and logistic regression (simple, multivariable) assessed denture failure risks, while Poisson regression evaluated numerical outcomes (α=.05). RESULTS: The study comprised 246 participants with 195 standard and 113 immediate dentures. There were 135 (54.9%) men, 111 (45.1%) women, with a mean ±standard deviation age of 66.80 ±11.86 years with no significant differences between sexes. Twenty-five dentures failed, representing a failure rate of 8.1%. (Kaplan Meier estimated failure-free time mean=4.39 years with 95% confidence interval 4.16 to 4.61 years). Immediate dentures had a significantly higher failure rate (n=15, 13.3%) compared with standard dentures (n=10, 5.1%), Fisher exact P=.016, and were associated with significantly more postinsertion appointments compared with nonfailed dentures (OR=1.49, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.99, P=.007). The mean number of postinsertion appointments for all dentures was 4.07, median=3; the majority of participants (68.8%) had no major and 68.8% had 4 or fewer minor adjustments. Immediate dentures in general were associated with more postinsertion appointments (Poisson regression, P<.001) with minor (P<.001) and major adjustments, (P<.001) compared with standard dentures. Immediate dentures were separately associated with more minor (multiple Poisson regression), (P<.001) and major adjustments (P=.001) compared with standard dentures. Participants with cardiovascular disorders (mean=0.63) had significantly more major adjustments than those with other medical conditions (mean=0.38), P=.022). CONCLUSIONS: The 5-year survival rate for complete dentures was 91.9%. Immediate dentures had a higher failure rate and required more appointments and adjustments than standard complete dentures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Prosthetic DentistrySame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207