Locator Attachments as an Alternative to Ball Attachments in 2-Implant Retained
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The classical treatment plan for the edentulous patient involves creation of maxillary and mandibular complete dentures. However, people who wear con-ventional dentures often report discom-fort or frank pain, lack of retention and stability, and difficulty eating. These com-plaints relate mostly to mandibular com-plete dentures.1 Osseointegrated implants provide a reasonable solution for problems with these dentures.2 Implant-retained mandibular overdentures are associated with significantly greater general satisfac-tion, comfort, stability and ability to chew than conventional mandibular dentures.3 Two-implant retained mandibular over-dentures are a routine therapy modality supported by the McGill consensus.4 Previous authors have reported less bone atrophy in edentulous mandibles into which implants have been placed; as such, implants are also important for bone preservation.5–7 Several attachment systems are available for 2-implant re-tained mandibular overden-tures, specifically ball, bar and magnet attachments and rigid or nonrigid telescopic copings.8 Because of their simplicity of application and low price, ball attachments are preferred.9,10 Although there are conflicting reports,11–14 ball attachments often have better scores for re-tention, soft-tissue or mechan-ical complications, and patient satisfaction than bar and magnet attachments.6,15–20 When the interarch distance or the height of the denture is inadequate for placing ball at-tachments, several problems may “Clinical Showcase ” is a series of pictorial essays that focus on the technical art of clinical dentistry. The section features step-by-step case demonstrations of clinical problems encountered in dental practice. If you would like to contribute to this section, contact editor-in-chief
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.006 |
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".