Four Modalities of Single Implant Treatment in the Anterior Maxilla: A Clinical, Radiographic, and Aesthetic Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To document the outcome of single implants in the anterior maxilla following four routine treatment modalities when performed by experienced clinicians in daily practice using the same implant system and biomaterials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective study in patients who had been treated by two periodontists and two prosthodontists in 2006 and 2007 was conducted. The four treatment modalities practically covered every clinical situation and included standard implant treatment (SIT), immediate implant treatment (IIT), implant treatment in conjunction with guided bone regeneration (GBR), and implant treatment in grafted bone (BGR) harvested from the chin. All implants were installed via flap surgery. Patients were clinically and radiographically examined. Complications were registered and the aesthetic outcome (pink esthetic score [PES] and white esthetic score [WES]) was rated. A blinded clinician who had not been involved in the treatment performed all evaluations. Patient's aesthetic satisfaction was also registered. RESULTS: One hundred four out of 115 eligible patients (44 SIT, 28 IIT, 18 GBR, and 14 BGR) received at least one single NobelReplace tapered TiUnite® (Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden) implant in the anterior maxilla and were available for evaluation. Clinical parameters (implant survival: 93%, mean plaque level: 24%, mean bleeding on probing: 33%, and mean probing depth: 3.2 mm) and mean bone level (1.19 mm) did not differ significantly between treatment modalities. Postoperative complications were more common following GBR/BGR (>61%) when compared with SIT/IIT (<18%) (p < .001). BGR was in 4/14 patients associated with permanent sensory complications at the donor site. Technical complications occurred in 9/104 patients. SIT and IIT showed similar soft tissue aesthetics (PES: 10.07 and 10.88, respectively), however major alveolar process deficiency was common (>15%). PES was 9.65 for GBR. BGR showed inferior soft tissue aesthetics (PES: 9.00; p = .045) and shorter distal papillae were found following GBR/BGR (p = .009). Periodontal disease (odds ratio [OR]: 13.0, p < .001), GBR/BGR (OR: 4.3, p = .004), and a thin-scalloped gingival biotype (OR: 3.7, p = .011) increased the risk for incomplete distal papillae. WES was 7.98 for all patients considered. Poor agreement was found between objective and subjective aesthetic ratings. CONCLUSIONS: All treatment modalities were predictable from a clinical and radiographic point of view. However, advanced reconstructive surgery, especially BGR, increased the risk for complications and compromised aesthetics. Research is required on the prevention and minimally invasive treatment of buccal bone defects at the time of tooth loss to avoid complex therapy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".