In Vivo Evaluation of Two‐Piece Implants Placed Following One‐Stage and Two‐Stage Surgical Protocol in Posterior Mandibular Region. Assessment of Alterations in Crestal Bone Level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endosseous implants can be placed following either two-stage technique requiring second-stage surgery or one-stage technique, which does not involve a second surgical intervention. PURPOSE: The present study was undertaken to evaluate and compare the changes in crestal bone level when two-piece implants were placed in posterior mandibular region following one-stage and two-stage surgical protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A parallel group randomized prospective study was designed in which 20 two-piece implants were placed in the posterior mandibular region of 16 partially edentulous healthy patients following either one-stage (Group I) or a two-stage surgical protocol (Group II). Alterations in crestal bone level were assessed with the help of DentaScan at baseline, that is, at the time of implant placement, third month and sixth month. RESULTS: Nonsignificant differences were seen in both groups in terms of changes in crestal bone level at the final evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Hence, it could be concluded that two-piece implants can be placed following one-stage surgical protocol as predictably as when two-stage surgical technique is followed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".