A 10‐Year Prospective Study of Single Tooth Implants Placed in the Anterior Maxilla
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the biological and technical outcomes of early and delayed placed single tooth implants after 10 years of follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients who needed a single tooth replacement in the anterior maxilla were included in this study. Ten implants were placed with an early placement protocol, that is, 4 weeks after tooth extraction, whereas the other 10 implants were placed with a conventional delayed placement protocol, for example, 12 weeks after tooth extraction. At the baseline and at the annual re-examinations, pain from implant regions, mobility, plaque, mucositis, and marginal bone levels were recorded. Biological and technical complications were registered. The patients evaluated the functional and aesthetic outcomes subjectively on a visual analogue scale after 3 and 10 years. RESULTS: All implants were still in situ after 10 years. The cumulative implant survival rate was 100%. Two implant-supported crowns were remade because of ceramic fractures. The 10-year crown survival rate was 90%. No significant differences in implant survival rates were found between the early and delayed protocols, regarding plaque retention, mucositis, or marginal bone levels. After 10 years, the mean marginal bone loss at both sides of the implants was less than 1.0 mm in the two groups. During the 10-year interval, 1 patient lost more than 1.5 mm of marginal bone, 3 patients lost between 1.0 mm and 1.4 mm of bone, and 16 patients lost less than 1.0 mm of bone as an average of the mesial and distal bone loss. CONCLUSIONS: This 10-year prospective clinical trial demonstrated a 100% implant survival and a 90% crown survival. The average marginal bone level change was less than 1 mm, and there was no difference between early and delayed implant placement. Patient satisfaction with the implant-supported single crowns reduced with time.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".