Immediate Nonfunctional Loading of NobelPerfect Implants in the Anterior Dental Arch in Private Practice – 5‐Year Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The concept of scalloped implants to maintain the natural contour of the alveolar ridge has been a source of controversy for many years. PURPOSE: This study examined the long-term clinical performance of the scalloped NobelPerfect implant in a one-stage procedure (immediate loading in the esthetic zone). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 20 patients, immediate prosthetic restorations were placed on 31 NobelPerfect implants in a private practice and followed for up to 78 months. Twenty-one implants were placed immediately after extraction, seven implants were placed after osseous consolidation of the extraction sockets, and three implants were placed secondary to extended alveolar ridge augmentation procedures. All implants were provisionalized on the day of implant placement and adjusted to clear all contacts in centric occlusion and during eccentric movements. Outcome variables were success rates, marginal bone levels, and pink esthetic score (PES) assessed per implant. RESULTS: One implant failed after 1.4 months. Five patients with six implants in total were scored in the 5-year follow-up as dropouts. Mean follow-up period of remaining 24 implants was 65 months (range, 55-78 months). Cumulative success rates according to the criteria specified by Smith and Zarb were 96.8%. Marginal bone levels averaged 1.1 mm above the first thread. Mean PES ratings were 10.5 (range, 3-13). CONCLUSIONS: Survival rates, marginal bone levels, and esthetic results suggest proof of principle for the preservation of the interproximal bony lamella with a scalloped implant design in long-term 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".