Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Two Implants with Different Prosthetic Interfaces and Neck Configurations: Randomized, Controlled, Split‐Mouth Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peri-implant bone loss seems to occur following implant placement/loading regardless of all the efforts to eliminate it. Several factors, including surgical trauma, biologic width establishment, lack of passive fit of the superstructures, implant-abutment microgap, and occlusal overloading, may increase peri-implant bone loss. Over the years, new interface designs were introduced and clinical studies suggest that internal conical connection and platform shifting may be advantageous for marginal bone preservation. PURPOSE: To compare clinical and radiological outcomes of two implant designs with different prosthetic interfaces and neck configurations in a randomized, controlled, split-mouth clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four partially edentate patients randomly received at least one internal conical connection with back-tapered collar and platform shifting design or external-hexagon implants with flat-to-flat implant-abutment interface. Primary end point was peri-implant bone level changes at different time points, failures of implants and/or prosthesis, any complications, implant stability quotient (ISQ) values, and periodontal parameters. RESULTS: No dropout occurred. Marginal bone changes were statistically significantly different with better results for the internal conical connection. No implants and prosthesis failures have been observed, yielding a cumulative survival rate of 100%. A high ISQ value was found for both implants, and no statistically significant difference was found for ISQ mean values between interventions at each time point (p > .05). All implants showed no bleeding on probing and a very slight amount of plaque at the 1-year-in-function visit. CONCLUSIONS: Both implant designs investigated performed similarly in terms of failure rates, providing successful results up to 1 year after loading. The back-tapered neck configuration with conical connection and built-in platform shifting showed statistically lower marginal bone loss than straight neck configuration with flat-to-flat implant-abutment interface and external-hexagonal connection.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".