Retención y desgaste de tres sistemas de "attachment" para prótesis totales mandibulares sobre implantes - Estudio in Vitro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mandibular overdentures retained by two implants are recognised as the first option for treating patients without teeth, as stated by the McGill University (Canada) in its consensus statement in 2002 and the British Society to the prosthodontics study, in your consensus statement of York, published in 2009. Compared to conventional full prosthesis, they provide greater satisfaction for the patient, greater chewing ability and preservation of the residual crest height.\n\n\t\t\t\t Purpose: This in vitro study was investigated and compare the durability and retention capacity of 3 types of attachments. Our working hypothesis states that there is no significant retention loss in different systems "attachments" tested and used in implant supported overdentures over the time and no wear in the metal components that`s requiring replacement during the same period.\n\n\t\t\t\t Materials and Methods: Three commercially available attachments were investigated:(Clix®: Preat Corporation, Santa Ynez, CA, United States; Dalbo-Plus®: Cendres+ Métaux, Biel/Bienne, Switzerland; Locator®: Zest Anchors,Inc ,Escondido, United States), 3 different abutments inclinations (0°, 10° and 20°) . The 72 attachments were placed in acrylic resin form and they were then subjected to mechanical testing (5400 cycles of insertion and removal) over the respective ball or Locator abutments immersed in artificial saliva at pH7 and 37°C, and retention values recorded at eight different times (at the beginning, one month, six months, a year, two years, three years, four years and five years).\n\n\t\t\t\t Results: The results revealed that there were significant differences in the average values of insertion/removal force due to the angulation (F (2, 48) =343619, p<0.05) and the type of attachment (F (7, 48) = 23.220, p < 0.05). An analysis of the results showed that the retention average (insertion and removal) for attachments was always more in inclination of 0° than inclination of 20°.\n\n\t\t\t\t Conclusions: All attachments were tested lose the maximum value of retention force. The abutment inclination influences the intrinsic strength value of each attachment and have effect on its durability over the period of time.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".