Long‐Term Evaluation of<scp>ANKYLOS</scp>® Dental Implants, Part<scp>I</scp>: 20‐Year Life Table Analysis of a Longitudinal Study of More Than 12,500 Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Scientific evidence is limited regarding the long-term (>10 years) outcomes of large enough numbers of implants (>500) to allow for reliable comparison of subgroups. The purpose of this study was to analyze the outcomes of dental implants placed in an active University Clinic setting and followed for up to 20 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data documenting the implant placement, prosthetic reconstruction, and annual follow-up of patients treated at Frankfurt University were extracted from a Structured Query Language database and patients' written records and evaluated statistically. RESULTS: Between April of 1991 and May of 2011, 12,737 ANKYLOS® (DENTSPLY Implants Manufacturing GmbH, Mannheim, Germany) implants were placed in 4,206 patients for a variety of clinical indications. The Kaplan-Meier cumulative survival rate (CSR) was 93.3% after 204 months. Most of the failures (198/1.6%) occurred during the first year after implant placement and before prosthesis delivery. A significantly higher (p < .001) number of implants placed in the mandible and in hard quality bone failed than those placed in the maxilla or in weak and normal quality bone. Female patients had significantly higher CSRs (93.7% 204 months) than male patients (92.8% 204 months/p = .029). The implants showed low rates of peri-implant bone loss after 204 months (horizontal: ≤1 mm: 85.7%, vertical: ≤1 mm: 85.2%). CONCLUSION: ANKYLOS dental implants followed for up to 20 years have high CSRs and low rates of peri-implant bone loss.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".