Survival Rate of Ultrawide Diameter Implants Placed into Molar Postextraction Sockets and in Function for Up to 144 Months
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: Innovations in macroimplant design, specifically ultrawide implants 7.0 mm or greater in diameter, have allowed immediate molar replacement. This is a retrospective study assessing the survival rates of ultrawide diameter implants (7.0, 8.0, 9.0 mm) immediately placed into molar extraction sockets. Implants were followed up to 144 months postplacement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted of all patients treated in a private surgical practice between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2020, who received ultrawide dental implants (7.0, 8,0, 9.0 mm.) placed immediately into molar extraction sockets. Wide diameter healing abutments were placed on all implants at the time of surgery. Abutments and crown restorations were fabricated after at least 4 months of unloaded healing. Patient age, sex, implant location and implant diameters were examined for survival. Insertion torque values at the time of placement and time in function were also evaluated. Biometric statistics were computed with p-values (<0.05. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were computed; p-values were set at 0.05. RESULTS: Five hundred forty-four patients (225 males; 319 females) average age 62.5 years (range 27 to 95) had 563 implants placed. Five hundred thirty-five of five hundred sixty-three (535/563) implants survived; 28 failed [clinical survival rate (CSR) 95.03%]. Number and time in function were: 0 to 12 years 100%; 0 to 9 years 85%; 0 to 6 years 69%; 0 to 3 years 35% or 10 to 12 years 16%; 7 to 9 years 16%; 4 to 6 years 34%; 0 to 3 years 35%. No significant differences were found between sex and implant failures (p = 0.22). Maxillary (266/285; 93.3%) and mandibular (269/278; 96.8%) implant CSRs were not significantly different. Three implant diameters were used: 7.0 mm (206/563) [36.6%]; 8.0 mm (267/563) [47.4%]; 9.0 mm (90/563) [15.9%]. Clinical survival rates were: 7.0 mm (201/206) [97.6%]; 8.0 mm (252/267) [94.4%]; 9.0 mm (82/90) [91.1%]. Mean age for patients with failed implants did not show any significant differences (p = 0.1398). Fifteen of the 28 failed implants failed within 120 days of surgical placement (prior to definitive restoration; [53.6%]; 4 implants failed between 4 and 12 months [14.3%]; 9 implants failed at least 1-year postloading [32.1%]. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this long-term retrospective study regarding ultrawide diameter implants suggested that these implants were viable treatment options for immediate molar replacement following tooth extraction in either jaw with an unloaded healing protocol. High clinical survival rates were reported over a 144-month (12-year) timeframe.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle