Ongoing Crestal Bone Loss around Implants Subjected to Computer‐Guided Flapless Surgery and Immediate Loading Using the All‐on‐4® Concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The All-on-4(®) concept is widely applied for full-arch rehabilitations, using two tilted and two axially loaded implants in order to overcome anatomical constraints. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the survival and individual success of implants immediately loaded with an All-on-4 full-arch screw-retained prosthetic bridge in fully edentulous mandibles or maxillae over up to 3 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 20 patients with atrophic jaws (9 maxillae, 11 mandibles) were treated with computer-guided flapless surgery and immediately provided with a provisional bridge. The final prosthesis was delivered after 6 months. In total, 80 TiUnite(™) Brånemark implants were placed. Radiographs were taken after surgery and 1 and 3 years later. RESULTS: A 3-year survival rate of 100% was seen for all implants, both in lower and in upper jaw. None of the temporary or definite prostheses were lost over the follow-up period of 3 years. After 1 year, the mean bone loss was 1.13 mm (SD 0.94; range -0.1 to 3.8), and after 3 years, it was 1.61 mm (SD 1.40; range 0 to 5). The mean bone loss between the 1-year and 3-year follow-ups was 0.48 mm (SD 0.66; range -1.2 to 3.6). This difference was statistically significant (p < .001), indicative of ongoing bone loss. Twenty-six percent of the implants had bone loss above 1.5 mm after 1 year, but after 3 years, 30% of the implants had already lost more than 1.9 mm. CONCLUSION: The implant and prosthetic survival was 100%, and patients benefited from the All-on-4 treatment. However, unacceptable ongoing bone loss was seen in 49.2% of the patients; this may be a warning sign for future problems and needs clinical attention. Overloading and surgery-related aspects need to be investigated as potential explanations.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".