Survival and success of sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched and titanium plasma-sprayed implants: a retrospective study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this open, retrospective, nonrandomized study was to evaluate survival and success rates for sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched (SLA) and titanium plasma-sprayed (TPS) implants placed by a single practitioner. The secondary objectives included evaluation of crestal bone loss and adverse events. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implants were placed by a single practitioner between April 1994 and December 2005. All clinical data, including information about adverse events, were entered into an electronic database. Outcomes were evaluated with Kaplan-Meier survival and life table analyses. RESULTS: Over the study period, 342 patients received a total of 836 implants, comprising 533 SLA and 303 TPS implants. Maximum and median follow-up times were 7.2 and 0.8 years, respectively, for patients with SLA implants and 9.7 and 4.6 years, respectively, for those with TPS implants. A greater proportion of SLA implants than TPS implants were placed in type IV bone. Overall, 807 (96.5%) of the implants met the survival criteria, and 795 (95.1%) were classified as successful. Failure rates were 2.6% (14/533) for SLA implants and 5.0% (15/303) for TPS implants. Early failure rates (less than 1 year after implantation) were 2.1% (11/533) for SLA implants and 3.0% (9/303) for TPS implants. Kaplan-Meier survival and life table analyses showed similar cumulative survival rates for the 2 types of implants at up to 5 years. Crestal bone loss was more common with TPS implants than with SLA implants, affecting 27 (8.9%) of the TPS implants and 14 (2.6%) of the SLA implants. Complication rates were 7.7% (41/533) for the SLA implants and 13.5% (41/303) for the TPS implants. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: SLA and TPS implants had similarly good clinical outcomes in this retrospective study, but the frequency of crestal bone loss was lower among the SLA implants. Continued observation of SLA implants is required to confirm these findings over the long term.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".