A 4‐ to 5‐Year Retrospective Clinical and Radiographic Study of Neoss Implants Placed with or without GBR Procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: New dental implant systems are continuously introduced to the market. It is important that clinicians report their experiences with these implants when used in different situations. AIM: The study aims to report the outcomes from a retrospective study on Neoss implants when used with or without guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study group comprised of 50 consecutive patients previously treated with 183 Neoss implants (Neoss Ltd., Harrogate, UK) in 53 sites because of single, partial, or total tooth loss. Implants were placed in healed bone in 23 sites, while a GBR procedure was used in 30 sites in conjunction with implant placement. A healing period of 3 to 6 months was utilized in 45 sites and in 8 sites a crown/bridge was fitted within a few days for immediate/early function. The number of failures, withdrawn and dropout implants was analyzed in a life-table. All available intraoral radiographs from baseline and annual check-ups were analyzed with regard to marginal bone level and bone loss. RESULTS: A cumulative survival rate (CSR) of 98.2% was found for the non-GBR group and 93.5% for the GBR group with an overall CSR of 95.0% after up to 5 years of loading. In spite of the failures, all patients received and maintained their prostheses. Based on all available radiographs, the bone level was situated 1.3±0.8mm (n=159) below the top of the collar at baseline and 1.7±0.8mm (n=60) after 5 years of follow-up. Based on paired baseline and 1-year (n=70) and 5-year radiographs (n=59), the bone loss was found to be 0.4±0.9 and 0.4±0.9mm, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between GBR and non-GBR sites with regard to implant survival or bone loss. CONCLUSIONS: The Neoss implant system showed good clinical and radiographic results after up to 5 years in function.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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".