Preliminary Report on the Outcome of Tilted Implants with Longer Lengths (20–25 mm) in Low‐Density Bone: One‐Year Follow‐Up of a Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this preliminary study was to report on the short-term outcome of tilted implants with 20 to 25 mm of length in immediate function with bicortical anchorage for prosthetic rehabilitation of complete edentulous jaws with low-density bone. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixteen patients (with 25 study implants and 43 nonstudy implants) presenting low-density bone were included in a prospective single cohort study to evaluate the short-term outcome of partial and complete edentulous rehabilitations using implants with 20 to 25 mm of length (NobelSpeedy Groovy, Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) in immediate function with bicortical anchorage (maxilla: alveolar ridge and nasal corticals; mandible: mandibular corticals). The patients were followed between 6 and 26 months (average of 14 months). Outcome measures were implant survival, marginal bone remodeling, biological and mechanical complications assessed at 10 days, 2, 4, and 6 months, 1-year posttreatment, and thereafter every 6 months. RESULTS: Two patients with four implants were lost to follow-up after 6 and 11 months. There were no implant failures, rendering a cumulative implant survival rate of 100%. The average marginal bone remodeling was 0.50 mm (SD = 0.34 mm) and 0.86 mm (SD = 0.46 mm), after 6 months and 1 year, respectively. There was one mechanical complication in one patient (abutment loosening) 1 month post-surgery. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the short-term outcome of prosthetic rehabilitations of patients with low-density bone using implants of 20 to 25 mm in length in immediate function with bicortical anchorage is viable judging by the high implant survival rate, low marginal bone remodeling, and low incidence of complications. Long-term evaluation of these implants through studies using a prospective design is mandatory.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".