Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Zirconia Bars for Mandibular Implant Overdentures: A Prospective Cohort Study With up to 3 Years of Follow‐Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes of computer-aided design-computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD-CAM) zirconia bars supporting mandibular implant overdentures (IODs) up to a follow-up period of 3 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort observational single-center study involving 30 edentulous patients rehabilitated with two dental implants (Ø4.3 × 10 mm) at the crestal bone level and an IOD supported by a zirconia bar with distal extensions (maximum length 10.6 mm). At the 1- and 3-year follow-up, implant, prosthetic survival, marginal bone level (MBL) changes, biological, and technical complications were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients were assessed at the 12-month (dropout of 19.4%), and 14 patients completed the 36- month follow-up (dropout of 54.8%). Implant survival and success rates were both 100%, while prosthetic survival was 100% with a success rate of 96%. No biological complications were observed during the follow-up period; however, one patient exhibited generalized mucosal hyperplasia around the zirconia bar at the 12-month evaluation. No prosthetic prosthodontic maintenance needs were reported. A mean marginal MBL of -1.28 mm (SD ± 0.37) was recorded at the initial 12-month follow-up, and - 1.32 mm (SD ± 0.32) at the 36-month follow-up. The difference in MBL between the two time points was not statistically significant (p = 0.529). CONCLUSION: Zirconia bars with distal extensions for mandibular IODs appear to be a reliable treatment option for the rehabilitation of edentulous patients, demonstrating favorable clinical outcomes up to 3 years of follow-up. A 100% implant and prosthetic survival rate was achieved, along with stable MBLs. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT06471881.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".