The Implant Biologic Pontic Designed Interface: Description of the Technique and Cone‐Beam Computed Tomography Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The study aims to evaluate clinically the thickness of the alveolar ridge mucosa underneath a zirconia implant-supported restoration with a modified ovate pontic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-five patients, 32 women and 33 men (mean age: 65.5 years; range 38-81), were included. A total of 383 implants (303 in the maxilla; 80 in the mandible), supporting 81 full or partial fixed dental prostheses (65 in the maxilla; 16 in the mandible), were either cement- or screw-retained. Three years after loading, a total of 219 pontic sites (153 in the maxilla; 66 in the mandible) were measured, and the thickness of the alveolar ridge mucosa between the prosthetic surface and the underlying bone crest were recorded. RESULTS: The overall implant and prosthesis survival rates at 3 years were 98.7% and 100%, respectively. No implant complications were reported, scoring a cumulative implant success rate of 100%. In the maxilla, the overall mean thickness of the alveolar ridge mucosa was 2.32 ± 0.57 mm. In the mandible, the overall mean thickness of the alveolar ridge mucosa was 2.20 ± 0.62 mm. There was no statistical difference between the overall mean values in the maxilla and mandible (p = .471). CONCLUSION: This radiologic retrospective study suggests the existence of a physiological barrier, named prosthetic biological width, underneath a novel pontic-designed restoration.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".