MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1560734193 · doi:10.1111/cid.12117

Marginal Bone Preservation in Single‐Tooth Replacement: A 5‐Year Prospective Clinical Multicenter Study

2013· article· en· W1560734193 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mauro Donati, Vincenzo La Scala, Rosario Di Raimondo, Stefano Speroni, Massimo Testi, Tord Berglundh

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDentistryImplantOsteotomeAbutmentRandomizationRandomized controlled trialClinical trialSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Few long-term studies are available comparing immediate and conventional loading protocols of implant-supported single-tooth replacement. PURPOSE: The aim of the present randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate prospectively the 5-year clinical and radiological outcome of immediate functional loading implants used in single-tooth replacement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred fifty-one subjects, who required single-tooth rehabilitation in the area from position 15 to 25 and from 35 to 45, were enrolled in eight private clinics in Italy. A randomization protocol was applied to allocate the implants in three treatment groups: one control group and two test groups. In the control group, implant placement was performed according to a conventional drilling procedure, and the implants were submerged for 3 months before abutment connection and loading. Implants allocated in the test group 1 and 2 followed an immediate functional loading protocol. While in test group 1, implant placement was performed according to conventional drilling procedure, in test group 2, a modified implant installation procedure (osteotome technique) was applied. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed during the 5-year follow-up, and technical and biological complications were registered. RESULTS: Although four implants (three in the test group 2 and one in the test group 1) were lost in the immediate functional loading groups in the first year of follow-up, no further implant loss occurred in any of the treatment groups in the following monitoring period up to 5 years. No significant differences on marginal bone level changes were observed between the treatment groups. About 52% of all implants showed bone gain in the period from 1-year to 5-year follow-up. The percentage of all implants that in the same interval of time showed bone loss was about 28%. Although few technical complications were recorded in the period of time up to 5 years, implants showing biological complication were 5.7%. CONCLUSION: It is suggested that implants installed with a conventional installation technique together with an immediate functional loading protocol may be considered as a valid treatment alternative in a long-term perspective when used in a single-tooth replacement in an esthetic area.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.154
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→