A 5‐Year Prospective Study on Cone‐Anchored Implants in the Edentulous Maxilla
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate dentist- as well as patient-centered outcomes of the implant-supported cone-anchored removable prosthesis in the edentulous maxilla over 5 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients, edentulous in the maxilla, received six Ti implants after which they were delayed loaded through a cone-anchored removable prosthesis. Clinical parameters such as plaque and bleeding indices, PTV, implant success, marginal bone loss, device and prosthesis complications, and patient satisfaction (visual analogue scale) were collected at follow-up visits scheduled 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, and 60 months postprosthesis delivery. RESULTS: After at least 5 years of follow-up (mean: 63.7 months), 53/59 implants were rated successful, while two of 59 failed and one implant was kept sleeping. Mean marginal bone loss from prosthesis delivery until 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively, was; 0.15 (SD: 0.87), 0.36 (SD: 1.07), and 0.60 mm (SD: 1.12). The mean Periotest® values at baseline and 5 years did not differ significantly. After 1 year, a significant improvement in patient satisfaction was recorded compared with the old denture, and this remained stable over the 5-year period. CONCLUSIONS: Cone-anchored removable dental prostheses retained by secondary splinted implants offer a safe alternative for patients with an edentulous maxilla in need of more comfort. Dentist- as well as patient-centered outcomes compete with reports using other prosthetic anchoring devices. Larger replica studies are encouraged to further validate this concept.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".