Comparison of Implant Stability by Means of Resonance Frequency Analysis for Flapless and Conventionally Inserted Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) is a noninvasive technique for the quantitative assessment of implant stability. Information on the implant stability quotient (ISQ) of transmucosally inserted implants is limited. PURPOSE: The aim of this investigation was to compare the ISQ of conventionally inserted implants by raising a muco-periostal flap with implants inserted using a flapless procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty elderly patients with complete edentulous maxilla were consecutively admitted for treatment with implant-supported prostheses. A computer tomography was obtained for the computer-assisted implant planning. One hundred ten implants were placed conventionally in 23 patients (flap-group) and 85 implants in 17 patients by means of the flapless method (flapless-group) using a stereolithographic template. RFA measurements were performed after implant placement (baseline) and after a healing time of 12 weeks (reentry). RESULTS: All implants exhibited clinically and radiographically successful osseointegration. Bone level did not change significantly neither for genders nor type of surgical protocol. Mean ISQ values of the flapless-group were significantly higher at baseline (p < .001) and at reentry (p < .001) compared with the flap-group. The ISQ values were significantly lower at reentry compared with baseline for the flap-group (p = .028) but not for the flapless-group. This group showed a moderate, but insignificant increase. RFA measurements of males resulted in ISQ values that were thoroughly higher as compared with females at both time-points in both groups. Correlation between RFA and bone level was not found. CONCLUSIONS: The flapless procedure showed favorable conditions with regard to implant stability and crestal bone level. Some changes of the ISQ values that represent primary (mechanical) and secondary (bone remodeling) implant stability were observed in slight favor of the flapless method and male patients. In properly planned and well-selected cases, the minimal invasive transmucosal technique using a drill-guide is a safe procedure.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".