Soft and Hard Tissue Changes around Tissue‐Oriented <scp>T</scp>ulip‐Design Implant Abutments: A 1‐Year Randomized Prospective Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The advantages of platform switching using narrower abutments remain controversial. Many researchers suggest that platform switching can yield enhanced clinical results, while others remain skeptical. We hypothesize that the effectiveness of platform switching might be associated with the degree of reduction in size of the abutment. PURPOSE: To radiographically and clinically examine a new abutment design created to move the implant-abutment interface farther medially. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial that included 27 patients (41 MIS Lance Plus® implants; MIS Implant Technologies, Karmiel, Israel). The patients' age ranged from 39 to 75 years. At the second stage of the surgery, the implants were randomly assigned to either the new platform switch Tulip abutment (TA) design or to the standard platform abutment (SA). Implant probing depth (IPD) and bleeding on probing (BOP) were recorded at baseline and after 12 months. Standardized periapical radiographs were taken (at baseline and at 12 months) and the marginal bone height measured. RESULTS: All implants were successfully integrated. The mean IPD at 1 year post-op was 2.91 mm for the SA group and 2.69 mm for the TA group (p > .05). Similarly, the BOP at 1 year was almost identical in both groups. The mean values of bone resorption at baseline were 0.98 ± 0.37 mm and 0.69 ± 0.20 for the TA and SA groups, respectively (p > .05). Bone loss (baseline to 12 months) was significantly greater in the SA group compared with the TA group. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the new TA, with its significantly downsized diameter, resulted in reduced bone loss at 1 year. Further research will be required to assess the long-term effect of this abutment on peri-implant health.
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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".