One‐Year Multicenter Prospective Evaluation of Survival Rates and Bone Resorption in One‐Piece Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported the efficiency of immediate loading techniques. PURPOSE: The aim of this multicenter prospective study was to evaluate the clinical efficiency of the one-piece screw (OPS) implants used by general dentists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 272 patients were treated with 533 implants at five dental clinics by five general dentists. Some implants were provided with provisional restoration. Implants in partially edentulous spaces were splinted with acryl, composite, and intraoral welding. The implant survival rates, bone resorption, plaque accumulation, and soft tissue health were evaluated after 3, 6, and 12 months. The final restorations were cemented in the maxilla after 6 months and in the mandible after 3 months. RESULTS: Twelve implants failed (98% survival rate) after 12 months. None of the splinted implants failed during the follow-ups. There were five failures in unsplinted partial cases. The average amounts of bone loss around the implants were 0.40 ± 0.35 mm, 0.56 ± 0.41 mm, and 0.59 ± 0.41 mm after 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Visible plaque was registered in 18% of the implants, and bleeding on probing was observed in 17% of the implants after 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: High survival rates and favorable host tissue responses support the clinical performance of OPS implants. This study demonstrated that one-piece implants can be efficiently used by well-trained general dentists.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".