Short dental implants as a treatment option: results from an observational study in a single private practice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose was to evaluate clinical outcome of short (6- and 8-mm) dental implants placed in sites with low bone availability (7 to 11 mm) in a single private practice and to compare their survival with that of longer implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implants were placed by a single private practitioner in a variety of clinical indications. Exclusion criteria included uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, alcoholism, and systemic immune disorders. Clinical data relating to implant placement and follow-up appointments, including adverse events, were entered into an electronic database. Two-year survival rates were calculated and life table analyses undertaken for implants measuring 6, 8, and 10 to 16 mm. RESULTS: A total of 630 Straumann implants were placed in 264 patients between April 1994 and December 2003. Of these, 35 implants were 6 mm long, 141 were 8 mm long, and 454 were 10 to 16 mm long. Maximum follow-up was 64.6 months, 83.7 months, and 102 months for implants measuring 6 mm, 8 mm, and 10 to 16 mm, respectively. Two-year survival rates were 94.3%, 99.3%, and 97.4% for 6-mm, 8-mm, and 10- to 16-mm implants, respectively. DISCUSSION: The results indicated that the 2-year outcome for 6-mm and 8-mm implants was comparable to that for longer (10- to 16-mm) implants in this patient population. CONCLUSION: In this study, short (6- or 8-mm) implants were used with good reliability in patients with limited bone availability, without the need for ridge augmentation. Shorter implant length was not associated with reduced survival at 2 years, compared with longer 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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".