Nonremoval of Immediate Abutments in Cases Involving Subcrestally Placed Postextractive Tapered Single Implants: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this trial was to assess if the nonremoval of abutments placed at the time of surgery would improve bone and gingival healing around single immediately restored implants placed in postextraction sockets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients received a single square-threaded tapered implant placed in postextraction sockets and immediately restored. All the implants were placed 2.0 mm below the bone crest, avoiding any contact with the coronal portion of the buccal wall. Six months after surgery, 35 patients were treated following the control standard prosthetic protocol: the abutments were removed and impressions were made directly on the implant platform. Thirty-three patients underwent the "one abutment at one time" test protocol: impressions were made of the abutments using snap-on abutment copies. The dimensional changes of the soft and hard tissues were assessed using digital photography and cone beam computed tomography radiographs immediately after surgery and at 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up examinations. RESULTS: All implants were osseointegrated and clinically stable at the follow-up examinations. No statistically significant difference was evidenced between the two groups regarding the measurement of vertical bone healing. After the placement of the final restoration, a significant horizontal loss in the hard tissue portion over the implant platform was assessed (p = .03 mesial sites; p = .04 distal sites). An 87% increase of the mean recession of the buccal soft tissue was observed in the control group (+0.27 mm) in the same time frame. CONCLUSIONS: The nonremoval of abutments placed at the time of the surgery improves the stability of healed soft and hard tissues around the immediately restored, subcrestally placed tapered single maxillary implant.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".