Clinical and Radiological Long‐Term Outcome of a Tapered Implant System with Special Emphasis on the Influence of Augmentation Procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Tapered implant designs aim to improve primary stability and implant survival in soft bone. However, respective clinical long-term data are scarce. Therefore, a clinical and radiological evaluation of the long-term success of a transgingival-supracrestal inserted tapered implant system with special emphasis on the influence of augmentation procedures was conducted. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a retrospective study design, all in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of the University Medical Centre, Mainz, Germany, between May 2002 and March 2012, placed tapered implants (Straumann TE®, Basel, Switzerland) were analyzed. In this time period, a total of one hundred ninety-seven tapered implants were inserted in 90 patients. For patients available for clinical recall, success criteria according to Albrektsson and Buser were evaluated. RESULTS: The in situ rate was 96.3% after an average time in situ of 62 ± 31 months. In one hundred twenty-seven sites, bone augmentation procedures were performed. Hereof, 96 sites were sinus augmentation procedures and 31 sites were alveolar ridge augmentations. For patients with sinus augmentation procedures, implant survival was 97.9% and for patients with alveolar ridge augmentations, implant survival was 93.5% after 5 years, indicating a higher implant survival for sinus augmentation, however not statistically different (p = .194). Implant diameter and timing of implant placement had no significant impact on implant survival (p > .05). Mean marginal bone loss was -0.50 ± 1.54 mm for patients receiving maxillary sinus augmentation and -1.16 ± 1.13 mm for patients with alveolar ridge augmentations, indicating a lower marginal bone loss in patients receiving maxillary sinus augmentation (p = .046). Implant success rates ranged between 88% and 92% after a mean follow-up of 6 years. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of the retrospective character of this study, the tapered soft tissue level implant showed especially in maxillary sinus augmentation promising long-term survival and success rates and a low peri-implant bone resorption compared with the literature.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".