A Novel Type of Dental Tube Implant for Areas with Limited Bone Height. Clinical and Radiographic Data from Three Patients with 5‐Year Follow‐Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alternative implant designs may reduce the need for complicated and costly bone augmentation procedures in situations with limited bone height. PURPOSE: Wide dental tube implants have been manufactured and tested in three patients and followed for 5 years to evaluate if such implants are capable to support fixed prosthetic constructions with good prognosis in areas with limited bone height. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four machined-tube implants with a height of 6 mm, an outer diameter of 7.4 mm, and an inner diameter of 6.0 mm were placed in three patients. After a healing period of 3 months, ceramometal suprastructures were constructed to supply the implants. Annual clinical and radiographical follow-ups were done up to 5 years. At the 5-year follow-up, all three patients were examined with a cone beam computed tomography technique. RESULTS: All implants and the suprastructures were clinically stable after 5 years. In one patient, vertical bone loss and a 6-mm deep pocket appeared after 1 year. The pocket has remained throughout the observation period and has been regularly debrided and kept it free from clinical signs of inflammation. In the other two patients, the soft tissue surrounding the implants was in good health with no or only slight inflammation throughout all observations. Pocket probing revealed no or slight bleeding and pocket depths amounting to less than 3 mm. CONCLUSION: It was shown that this new type of implant will function excellent during follow-up times of several years. Further studies should be done to explore in more detail indications for such implants.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".