The "TORONTO PROSTHESIS", an appealing method for restoring patients candidates for hybrid overdentures: a case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The implant is a therapeutic resource in constant evolution, and the different types of implants and techniques have been increasingly used in cases of both fully or partially edentulous patients. In some cases they provide more conservative treatment, and in others better stability, retention, and function. To achieve a satisfactory result, there are several factors that should be taken into account: the type and quality of the bone, bone density, the placement location of implants, retrievability of restorations, the patient's motivation, and economic issues. Trainees should be aware of the limitations of the techniques that can be used for successful prosthetic rehabilitation. This work describes the prosthetic rehabilitation of a fully edentulous mandible treated with dental implants using the 'Toronto Bridge' technique for restoring both function and aesthetics. This type of prosthesis is a screwed-in mesostructure with milled abutments for the cementation of single or multiple suprastructures. This device could also be named 'abutment-hybrid overdenture' The main advantages and disadvantages of this protocol are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".