Primary Stability of a Hybrid Implant Compared with Tapered and Cylindrical Implants in an <scp>E</scp>x Vivo Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hybrid implants are thought to offer good stability and bone-implant contact. PURPOSE: This study sought to evaluate the primary stability of a hybrid implant compared with tapered and cylindrical implants in an ex vivo model and compare undersized drilling with standard drilling in attaining primary stability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Hybrid (Straumann® Bone Level; BL), tapered (Straumann® Tapered Effect; TE), and cylindrical (Straumann® Standard Plus; SP) implants were inserted into 15 mm-thick porcine iliac crest blocks using standard (corticocancellous or cancellous bone) or undersized (cancellous bone only) drilling (n = 7). Stability was evaluated using maximum insertion torque (MIT), implant stability quotient (ISQ), and push-out tests. RESULTS: The mean MIT for BL and TE was significantly higher than that for SP (p < 0.05). With standard drilling in corticocancellous bone, the mean ISQ for TE was significantly higher than that for SP (p < .05). The mean MIT, ISQ, and push-out test scores for BL, TE, and SP with standard drilling in corticocancellous bone were significantly higher than those with undersized or standard drilling in cancellous bone (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: In this ex vivo model, the hybrid implant demonstrated promising primary stability compared with the cylindrical implant. The improved stability of the hybrid implant was especially evident in cancellous bone. The influence of the cortical layer should be recognized when selecting implants for primary stability.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".