Clinical Investigation on Axial versus Tilted Implants for Immediate Fixed Rehabilitation of Edentulous Arches: Preliminary Results of a Single Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical investigation was to evaluate full-arch fixed-dental restorations supported by immediate loaded axial and tilted implants in a single-cohort study. Survival rate of axial and tilted implants was compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2006 to 2010, 30 patients were recruited and treated with dental implants. Provisional fixed-dental prostheses were screw-retained over axial or axial and tilted implants within 24 hours after surgery. Follow-ups at 6, 12, and 24 months and annually up to 5 years were scheduled, and radiographic evaluation of peri-implant bone level changes was conducted. RESULTS: Thirty patients (20 females and 10 males) were followed up for an average of 44 months (range 18-67 months). Six patients received both upper and lower implant rehabilitations, resulting in 36 restorations. A total of two hundred two implants were placed (maxilla = 118; mandible = 84) and 46% of the fixtures were evaluated at the 4-year recall. Four axial implants were lost in three patients, leading to 98.02% implant (97.56% axial implants and 100% tilted implants) and 100% prosthetic cumulative survival rate, respectively. No significant difference in marginal bone loss was found between tilted and axial implants in both jaws at 1-year evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Midterm results confirmed that immediate loading of axial and tilted implants provides a viable treatment modality for the rehabilitation of edentulous arches.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".