Sleeping Implant in the Temporal Bone: Report of a Case with 20‐Year Follow‐Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited knowledge of the long-term fate of "sleeping" or nonloaded implants in the temporal bone. PURPOSE: This article describes the fate of a fixture installed in the temporal bone that remained unloaded for 20 years. PATIENT AND METHODS: A 25-year-old male with hemifacial microsomia had three osseointegrated implants installed for an auricular episthesis and bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) in the left temporal bone in 1988. Two of the implants for the ear episthesis were activated the same year, but the fixture for the hearing aid was not uncovered until 2008. When the patient experienced hearing problems at his office, he wanted to reactivate the sleeping implant. An audiogram showed a maximum conductive hearing loss with good preserved cochlear function. Before reactivation, an Accuitomo three-dimensional, cone beam computed tomography was performed. Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) using the Ostell technique was done when the implant was uncovered. RESULTS: Preoperative x-ray investigation showed the sleeping implant to be well integrated in the temporal bone, covered with 1 mm bone, and with no signs of resorption. Geometric measurements correlating to the two loaded implants showed the sleeping implant to be positioned too close to these to be able to anchor a BAHA without interference with the episthesis. Surgical exploration was done to analyze the implant. The clinical status correlated well to that diagnosed from the x-ray investigation. RFA revealed the implant to be well integrated. A new fixture and abutment for BAHA was installed in the temporal line and activated 2 months after surgery. The patient is today supplied with a BAHA. CONCLUSION: It seems possible to use sleeping implants in the temporal bone even 20 years after installation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".