<scp>A</scp>ll‐on‐4® Treatment Concept for the Rehabilitation of the Completely Edentulous Mandible: A 7‐Year Clinical and 5‐Year Radiographic Retrospective Case Series with Risk Assessment for Implant Failure and Marginal Bone Level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes of the All-on-4® treatment concept (Nobel Biocare AB) for rehabilitation of edentulous mandibles by assessing marginal bone levels and risk indicators for implant failure. PURPOSE: To evaluate 7-year clinical outcomes and 5-year radiographic outcomes of the All-on-4 treatment concept. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective case series included patients admitted for implant rehabilitations in the mandible, who were followed for 7 years clinically and 5 years radiographically. Primary outcome measures were cumulative prosthetic and implant survival using patient as the unit of analysis (Kaplan-Meier product limit estimator). Secondary outcome measure was marginal bone level (MBL) at 5 years. Variables associated with implant failure were analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards regression model to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Binary logistic regression was used to compute odds ratio (OR) with 95% CIs for variables associated with MBL ≥2.8 mm at 5 years. RESULTS: A total of 324 patients (194 women, 130 men, average age = 58.9 years) were rehabilitated with 1,296 implants supporting 324 full-arch fixed immediately loaded mandibular prostheses. Sixty-four patients (19.8%) were lost to follow-up. Prosthetic survival was 323/324 (99.7%), and 14 patients lost 18 implants, with an estimated cumulative survival rate of 95.4% at 7 years. Variables associated with implant failure were smoking (HR = 5.28; 95% CI: 1.33, 20.91]) and the learning curve effect (0.69 < HR < 0.33 for more experienced levels). Mean MBL at 5 years was 1.81 mm (95% CI: 1.70, 1.92), and smoking was associated with MBL ≥2.8 mm (OR = 2.4; 95% CI: 1.02, 5.62). CONCLUSIONS: The high implant and prosthetic survival rates and excellent MBL outcome confirm the predictability and safety of the All-on-4 treatment concept over a longer term than previously reported.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".