Impact of Insertion Torque and Implant Neck Design on Peri‐Implant Bone Level: A Randomized Split‐Mouth Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to assess the impact of insertion torque and implant neck design on peri-implant bone levels and gain insights into dynamic crestal tissue alterations by radiological, clinical, and biochemical examinations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective trial, a total of 84 implants (four implants in each patient) in the interforaminal region of 21 edentulous mandibles were randomly alternated according to a split-mouth design. Implant placement was performed using different insertion torques (≤20 Ncm vs >50 Ncm). In each group, one machined and one anodized implant neck design (1.5 mm length) was used in the same jaw side. Evaluation of peri-implant tissues involved radiological, clinical examination and immunoassays for interleukin-1β. RESULTS: No significant influence of insertion torque or implant neck design on peri-implant bone level was found. Protein levels of interleukin-1β in the peri-implant crevicular fluid revealed no difference between both insertion torque groups and different neck designs. CONCLUSION: Interactive effects of insertion torque and neck surface modification may exist; however, no clinically significant differences in marginal bone resorption after 1 year could be observed in the edentulous anterior mandible.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".