Clinical Outcome and Bone Preservation of Single TiUnite™ Implants Installed with Flapless or Flap Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Flapless, free-handed implant surgery offers advantages for patient comfort, but studies on long-term clinical success based on marginal bone loss are scarce. AIM: The aim of this study was to compare single implants installed with a flap (F) or flapless (FL) surgery with respect to survival and marginal bone preservation after at least 3 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-three TiUnite™ Brånemark implants, installed in 49 patients (27 females; 22 males; mean age 53 years) were examined. Then, 25 F and 28 FL were delayed loaded; bone level from the abutment-implant level was measured on intraoral radiographs. From 44 (21 F, 23 FL), 31 (18F, 13 FL), and 36 (18 F, 18 FL) implants, radiographs were available at baseline and after 1 and 3 years of function. RESULTS: The overall survival rate was 100% and the overall mean bone loss after an average of 38 months was 1.35 mm (SD 0.91; range 0-3.7). Both F and FL showed increasing bone loss during the first year with a higher bone loss for FL than for F sites (p < .01). Afterward, no further bone loss occurred and both groups were statistically equal (p > .7). On individual implant level, nearly 80% in both F and FL were considered a success showing bone loss between 1.5 and 1.9 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Single implants yield an excellent prognosis with stable bone levels irrespective of the surgical technique, and free-handed flapless surgery is a viable alternative to more extensively planned guided surgery. Proper case selection and clinical experience are considered prerequisites for a predictable treatment outcome.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".