Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes and Bone Loss around Titanium Implants with Oxidized Surface: Six‐Year Follow‐Up Results from a Prospective Case Series Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective study was to assess long-term clinical outcomes and peri-implant bone level changes around oxidized implants supporting partial fixed rehabilitations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two partially edentulous patients were included in the study. A total of 33 fixed rehabilitations were placed, supported by 54 titanium implants with oxidized microtextured surface. Prostheses were delivered after 3 and 6 months of implant placement in the mandible and maxilla, respectively. Patients were scheduled for follow-up at 6 and 12 months and then yearly. At each follow-up, plaque level and bleeding scores were assessed and periapical radiographs were taken. The main outcomes were prosthesis success, implant survival, implant success, and marginal bone level change. RESULTS: Three patients were excluded from the study because they did not attend the 1-year follow-up. Nineteen patients, accounting for 49 implants, were followed for at least 6 years after prosthesis delivery. The mean follow-up duration was 81.8 months (range 75-96 months). One mandibular single-tooth implant failed after 1 year in a smoker woman. Cumulative implant survival and success at 6 years were 98.0% and 95.9%, respectively. Prosthesis success was 96.7%. The mean peri-implant bone loss at 6 years was 0.76 ± 0.47 mm. Not significantly (p = .75) greater bone loss was found in the maxilla (0.78 ± 0.14 mm, n = 19) as compared with the mandible (0.74 ± 0.59 mm, n = 30). In the maxilla, bone loss was significantly greater around implants supporting partial prostheses as compared with single-tooth implants (p = .03). Full patient satisfaction was reported. CONCLUSION: Implants with oxidized microtextured surface may achieve excellent long-term clinical outcomes in the rehabilitation of partial edentulism.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".