Four‐Millimeter‐Long Posterior‐Mandible Implants: 5‐Year Outcomes of a Prospective Multicenter Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is lack of evidence on long-term success of short dental implants in reduced alveolar bone. PURPOSE: In this prospective 5-year study, survival and marginal bone loss of 4-mm implants, which supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) in severely resorbed posterior mandibles, were evaluated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 28 patients, evaluation of 86 osseointegrated 4-mm-long implants, which supported a 3- or a 4-unit FDP by crown splinting without the use of pontics or cantilevers, was performed over a 5-year period. RESULTS: Three subjects dropped out for non-study reasons: one subject had her three implants removed after 1 year and two subjects died (six implants). Five implants in three subjects were lost between 3 and 5 years. Twenty-four subjects and 71 implants were active at the 5-year follow-up (92.2% survival). After 1 year, significant (p < .001) mean (standard error of the mean [SEM]) 0.44-mm (0.05) marginal bone loss occurred. At 2, 3, and 5 years, mean (SEM) bone loss of 0.57 mm (0.06), 0.55 mm (0.07), and 0.53 mm (0.08) occurred, respectively (no significant change after 1 year). At 5 years, average plaque levels were 13.3%; 69% of the implants were plaque free. On average, mucosal bleeding occurred at 8.1% of the implants. During 5 years, two subjects experienced uncomplicated bridge loosening. No other complications occurred during the study. CONCLUSION: Four-millimeter implants can support FDPs in severely resorbed posterior mandibles for 5 years with healthy peri-implant conditions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".