One‐Year Results of a Clinical and Radiological Prospective Multicenter Study on NEOSS® Dental Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: NEOSS® (Neoss Ltd., Harrogate, UK) dental implant system was introduced on the clinical arena in 2003. It is important that novel implant systems are systematically evaluated in a multicenter setting. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to follow a large number of consecutively treated patients, with NEOSS dental implant system, both clinically and radiographically. The current report constitutes the 1-year data of a planned 5-year study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included a total of 177 patients treated with 590 NEOSS implants at 13 clinics in Sweden. The material was composed of 72 males and 105 females treated for single, partial, and total edentulism. Clinical, radiographic, and subjective evaluations were performed. RESULTS: Out of 590 implants, 13 early failures have been reported, corresponding to a 1-year cumulative survival rate (CSR) of 97.8%. Evaluation of function and esthetics at the 1-year visit resulted in 100% success for function and 98% success for the esthetic outcome. The mean marginal bone loss was 0.6 mm (SD 1.1) after 1 year in clinical function. No adverse effects of the NEOSS dental implants were reported, and complications were few and similar to those reported for implant treatment in general. CONCLUSION: The CSR in the present study was 97.8%. No adverse effects of the NEOSS implants were reported, and complications during the study period were few and similar to those reported to for other well-documented implants system. Based on the present data, we conclude that NEOSS dental implant is a safe and predictable implant system. However, the high number of dropouts in the radiological evaluation must be considered when interpreting the data.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".