Evaluation of Primary Stability of Self‐Tapping and Non‐Self‐Tapping Dental Implants. A 12‐Week Clinical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between surgical techniques and implant macro-design (self-tapping/non-self-tapping) for the optimization of implant stability in the low-density bone present in the posterior maxilla using resonance frequency analysis (RFA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 102 implants were studied. Fifty-six self-tapping BlueSkyBredent® (Bredent GmbH&Co.Kg®, Senden, Germany) and 56 non-self-tapping Standard Plus Straumann® (Institut Straumann AG®, Waldenburg, Switzerland) were placed in the posterior segment of the maxilla. Implants of both types were placed in sites prepared with either lateral bone-condensing or with bone-drilling techniques. Implant stability measurements were performed using RFA immediately after implant placement and weekly during a 12-week follow-up period. RESULTS: Both types of implants placed after bone condensing achieved significantly higher stability immediately after surgery, as well as during the entire 12-week observation period compared with those placed following bone drilling. After bone condensation, there were no significant differences in primary stability or in implant stability after the first week between both implant types. From 2 to 12 postoperative weeks, significantly higher stability was shown by self-tapping implants. After bone drilling, self-tapping implants achieved significantly higher stability than non-self-tapping implants during the entire follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of the present study indicate that bone drilling is not an effective technique for improving implant stability and, following this technique, the use of self-tapping implants is highly recommended. Implant stability optimization in the soft bone can be achieved by lateral bone-condensing technique, regardless of implant macro-design.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".