A 1‐Year Controlled Clinical Trial of Immediate Implants Placed in Fresh Extraction Sockets: Stability Measurements and Crestal Bone Level Changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to measure stability and crestal bone level changes of implants placed in fresh extraction sockets in elderly patients. METHODS: Thirty-five patients who were in need of tooth extractions were recruited for this study. They received a total of 65 implants in both jaws to support fixed or removable prostheses. The teeth were carefully extracted, the implants set directly in the root socket, and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) measurements were simultaneously performed (Time 1=T1). After a healing time of 6 to 10weeks the measurements were repeated (Time 2=T2). Orthograd periapical radiographs were taken when the new prostheses were fabricated and after 1year of loaded period. The distance between the first visible bone implant contact (BIC) and the implant-shoulder was measured and crestal bone loss was calculated (ΔBIC). Mean RFA and BIC were compared for various subgroups (p<.05). By means of a fixed effects model, the impact of the parameters gender, jaw, and prosthetic indication on RFA measurements was analyzed (p<.016). RESULTS: The mean implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were 64.4±6.7 at T1 and 64.0±at 8.6T2, with a trend to higher values for male patients. The mixed model showed that only the jaw had a statistically significant impact on ISQ values, with higher values for the mandible. Mean crestal bone loss was small with 0.49±0.81mm, ranging form 0.1 to 2.4mm. Twenty percent of the implant sites lost more than 1-mm crestal bone. No differences were found in subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Good primary and secondary stability of the implants was reached in both jaws. Crestal bone loss was small but may not be fully predictable for a single site. This treatment modality can be applied successfully in elderly patients and can be suggested for various prosthetic indications in both jaws.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".