Fixed Implant‐Supported Prostheses in Elderly Patients: A 5‐Year Retrospective Comparison between Partially and Completely Edentulous Patients Aged 80 Years or Older at Implant Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knowledge on implant treatment in the partially edentulous patient is low for elderly patients aged 80 years or older at inclusion. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to report and compare the clinical and radiological performance of implant treatment in edentulous and partially edentulous elderly patients during 5 years in function. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Altogether, 192 edentulous (control) and 72 partially edentulous (study) patients, consecutively treated and provided with 1,091 and 265 Brånemark implants, respectively, were included during a period between January 1986 and December 2003, and followed-up for 5 years. Clinical information was retrospectively retrieved from patient files and intraoral radiographs were analyzed for examinations at prosthesis placement and after 1 and 5 years in function. RESULTS: Altogether, 92 (48%) control and 24 (33%) study patients were lost to follow-up during the 5-year period. In total, 13 (4.9%) and 26 (2.4%) implants were in the study and control groups, respectively, were lost during follow-up, resulting in a comparable 5-year implant cumulative survival rate ranging from 93.9% to 99.3% for upper and lower jaws for study and control groups, respectively. Comparable mean marginal bone loss during 5 years, ranging from 0.4 mm to 0.6 mm, was also observed in the groups. The most common complications for patients in both study and control group were soft tissue inflammation (mucositis). Patients included in the first years of the inclusion (1986-1991) period showed comparable results as patient included at the last part of the inclusion period (1998-2003). CONCLUSIONS: Implant treatment in the partially edentulous elderly patients showed comparable clinical and radiographic results as elderly patients treated in the edentulous jaw.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".