Rehabilitation of Edentulous Mandibles by Means of Osseointegrated Implants: A 5‐Year Follow‐Up Study on One or Two‐Stage Surgery, Number of Implants, Implant Surfaces, and Age at Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In three former reports, the present team has presented the 1-year outcome of four different treatment procedures handling the edentulous mandible; that is, two-stage and one-stage surgery with turned Brånemark System® (Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) implants (Group 1 and 2) and one-stage surgery using either 5 or 4 TiUnite™ (Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) implants (Group 3 and 4). PURPOSE: The aim of the present investigation was to follow up these patients for a period of 5 years with regard to implant/prosthesis cumulative survival rates, marginal bone loss calculations, clinical complications, and results related to age at surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 385 patients, provided with 1,838 implants, were originally included in the four patient groups. All patients received fixed prostheses. The overall majority of patients had each five implants placed. Radiographs were obtained at prosthesis delivery, at the 1 and 5-year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 1,230 implants in 259 patients (67%) were possible to follow up for 5 years. Implant Cumulative Survival Rates (CSR) in 5 years for Groups 1-4 were 99.7, 97.0, 98.5, and 98.6%. The corresponding prosthesis treatment CSR was 100, 99.3, 98.5, and 98.6%, respectively. Significantly, more patients (p< .05) lost turned implants after one-stage surgery (Group 2). Frequency distributions of implants revealed that >1.2 mm bone loss was observed around 75 implants (6.4%). The moderately rough central (midline) implant showed more bone loss than other placed implants (Group 3; p< .05). The youngest half of included patients at surgery (Youngest(50%) ; n=193) presented significantly higher mortality than older patients as well as compared to normal population (p< .05). Patients in the Younger(50%) group showed also an association to patients with complete loss of all implants and patients with most implants with obvious bone loss after 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: All four treatment procedures served well during the 5 years of follow-up and only eight patients (2.1%) were complete failures or showed obvious bone loss (>1.8 mm) at several implants (>2 implants), mostly observed in younger patients. The few complications in relation to implant failure and/or obvious bone loss could be associated to both local impact factors (surface, implant site, surgical protocol) as well as to host response factors (systemic health).
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".