Factors Affecting Survival and Usefulness of Implants Placed in Vascularized Free Composite Grafts Used in Post–Head and Neck Cancer Reconstruction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bone-containing vascularized grafts have been used successfully to reconstruct post-cancer surgical defects. Dental implants can be placed in these bone-containing grafts to allow implant-supported prosthodontic reconstruction of these patients. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival of dental implants used in the rehabilitation of subjects treated with bone-containing vascularized grafts to compare usability of implants placed at the time of reconstruction and after healing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was undertaken to examine survival rates of implants placed in vascularized bone-containing grafts either immediately at the time of surgical reconstruction or after 3 months healing. Other factors such as graft type, whether radiation therapy was given, and implant type were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients had 145 implants placed in 47 vascularized bone-containing flaps. Increased failure rate of implants was seen in immediately placed implants. There was also a significant increase in the number of osseointegrated implants that were prosthodontically unusable or sub-optimally placed in the immediate placement group. Radiation therapy was associated with a significant increase in failure rate. Modern implant surfaces appeared to perform better than machined/turned surfaces. Graft donor site did not influence implant survival. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the difficulties encountered with immediate placement of dental implants at the time of post-cancer reconstructive surgery.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it