Single Restorations in the Resorbed Posterior Mandible Supported by 6‐mm Implants: A 1‐Year Prospective Case Series Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective case series study was to assess the clinical performance of single restorations in the posterior mandible supported by 6-mm implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one consecutive patients with one or more missing premolars or molars in the posterior mandible and with an estimated bone height of 8 mm between the top of the ridge and alveolar nerve were included. Each patient was to receive one or more 6-mm implants (OsseoSpeed 4.0 S, Astra Tech Implant System, Dentsply Implants, Mölndal, Sweden) without any grafting. After a 3-month osseointegration period, the implants were restored with custom-made titanium abutments (Atlantis abutment, Dentsply Implants) and cemented zirconia-based porcelain crowns. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed at placement of the restoration and 12 months thereafter. Next to this, patients' satisfaction was scored before treatment and after 12 months with the restoration in function. RESULTS: Implant survival was 100%. From loading to the 12-month follow-up, mean marginal bone loss was 0.14 mm (SD: 0.4). Mean scores for plaque, calculus, gingiva, bleeding, and pocket probing depth were low. Patients' satisfaction was high. CONCLUSION: One-year follow-up data revealed that 6-mm dental implants inserted in the resorbed posterior mandible provide a solid basis for single tooth 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".