MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1661393200 · doi:10.1111/cid.12022

One‐Year Clinical and Radiographic Results with a Novel Hydrophilic Titanium Dental Implant

2012· article· en· W1661393200 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Werner Degasperi, Peter Andersson, Damiano Verrocchi, Lars Sennerby

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImplant stability quotientMedicineDentistryImplantRadiographyResonance frequency analysisMaxillaSurvival rateDental implantOsseointegrationOrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: New implant designs are continuously introduced to the market. It is important to evaluate and report on their clinical performance when used in everyday practice. PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a novel hydrophilic dental implant for 1 year. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 49 patients previously treated with 102 hydrophilic dental implants (Neoss Proactive, Neoss Ltd, Harrogate, UK) were retrospectively evaluated with regard to survival rate and marginal bone loss. Fifty-four implants were installed in maxillae and 48 in mandibles to replace single teeth (n = 21), to support partial bridges (n = 26), total maxillary bridges (n = 2), or mandibular overdentures (n = 2). The majority of patients (n = 37) had implants placed in healed sites without any adjunctive procedures. In 12 patients, implants were immediately placed in extraction sockets or in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation. All implant sites had been classified according to the Lekholm and Zarb index. Baseline and 1-year intraoral radiographs were used to calculate marginal bone levels and bone loss. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) measurements had been taken at placement and after 3 to 4 months of healing RESULTS: The implants became rapidly covered with blood at the first contact. One implant was lost, giving a cumulative survival rate (CSR) of 99.0% after 1 year. The marginal bone loss amounted to 0.7 ± 0.6 mm with 3.5% of the implants showing more than 2 mm of bone loss and no implant more than 3 mm bone loss after 1 year. The primary stability was found to be 72.7 ± 7.5 ISQ, which slightly increased to 73.6 ± 7.2 ISQ (NS) after 3 to 4 months of healing. The stability was significantly higher in the mandible than in the maxilla at placement and after healing. CONCLUSION: In this limited clinical study, the use of a novel hydrophilic dental implant results in favorable short-term outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.142
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→