The Influence of Implant Design on Bone Remodeling around Surface‐Modified Southern Implants®
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implant survival and success have shown to be related to a number of factors. AIM: To evaluate the impact of implant design on implant survival and success, focusing on thread pitch and implant shape. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Non-smoking patients treated by two experienced periodontists with standard diameter externally-hexed Southern® implant(s) inserted in healed bone were retrospectively selected. A one-stage surgical approach was used in all cases and implants had been installed for at least 6 months. Information pertaining to patient-related variables, time of loading, implant design and radiographical outcome was retrieved from patients' records. Implant success was defined according to the criteria by Albrektsson and Isidor, taking into consideration bone level, defined as the distance from the implant-abutment interface to the first bone-to-implant contact. RESULTS: In total, 59 patients treated with one hundred eleven externally-hexed Southern Implants® met the inclusion criteria. Fifty-six straight implants with a thread pitch of 0.6 mm and 55 tapered implants with a thread pitch of 1.0 mm were placed. The total implant survival rate was 98.2% after a mean follow-up period of 14 months (range 6-28). The mean bone level was 1.35 mm (SD 0.46, range 0.59-3.70) and the overall implant success rate was 75.7%. Age, gender, length, and time of loading were not decisive for implant neither failure nor bone loss in contradiction to implant design and thread pitch (p < .01). Tapered implants with a 1.0 mm thread pitch were less successful than parallel-walled implants with a 0.6 mm thread pitch. CONCLUSION: The Southern Implants® system shows good short-term survival rates and bone preservation. However, bone remodeling seems affected by the implant design. Whether this is due to the tapered shape of the implant or the thread pitch is unclear and needs to be elucidated in future research.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".