Immediate Restoration of Single Tapered Implants with Nonoccluding Provisional Crowns: A 5‐Year Clinical Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dental literature has limited number of publications regarding long-term outcome data of immediate restoration of single missing teeth with an implant-supported provisional crown. PURPOSE: This 5-year study evaluated hard and soft tissue responses to the immediate placement of single implant-supported provisional crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients received one dental implant restored immediately with a provisional acrylic resin screw-retained crown. Crestal bone loss was evaluated from standardized periapical radiographs collected at 3-month intervals for the first 21 months followed by a 5-year evaluation. Historical controls acquired from available dental literature were used for comparison. RESULTS: One implant failed within 2 months of surgical placement, presenting with pain and mobility. The remaining implants demonstrated no infection, pain, or radiolucencies. Nineteen implants were clinically immobile, osseointegrated, and asymptomatic at 21 months. At 5 years, one patient died, three patients were noncompliant, and 15 implants were evaluated as functional. Mean bone loss (MBL) at 1 year and 21 months was approximately 0.5 ± 0.5 mm and 0.70 ± 0.26 mm at 5 years. There was no statistically significant difference between MBLs at p < 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate provisionalization of single dental implants compares favorably with conventional loading protocols. Long-term data suggest that immediate provisionalization of single dental implants is a viable treatment option.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".