MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Immediate Loading of Tapered Implants Placed in Postextraction Sockets: Retrospective Analysis of the 5‐Year Clinical Outcome

2010· article· en· W1954297027 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Priamo Mura

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDentistryMaxillaImplantMandible (arthropod mouthpart)Retrospective cohort studyOrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The use of immediate implant loading protocols delivers obvious benefits to the patient. When applied in healed sites, this has not only been well documented in the totally edentolous mandible but has also been documented and reported to be predictable in the upper jaw, and in cases of partial edentoulism, as well. A further application of immediate loading protocol, although still controversial, especially when replacing single maxillary teeth in the anterior zone, is the immediate implant placement and provisionalization in postextractive sockets. In consideration of the oxidized surface promoting bone healing and the tapered shape of the implant body, the Replace Select Tapered TiUnite implants have been used for many years in our clinic when facing these clinical situations. This article will report about our long-term clinical experience with such implants and the relevant role of a correct surgical and prosthetic treatment planning. PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study was to report on the 5-year clinical and radiologic outcome of patients treated with Replace Select Tapered TiUnite implants when used according to an immediate loading protocol in postextraction sites. METHOD AND MATERIALS: In routine practice, 56 consecutive patients were treated with 79 implants. The patients, 23 males and 33 females, had a mean age of 50.9 years, range 21-76 years, at implant placement. Forty-seven implants were placed in the maxilla and 32 implants were placed in the mandible. All implants were placed in postextraction sites and were immediately loaded. Provisional restorations were delivered within 2 hours from surgery and all were in occlusion. Forty-three patients received a single implant while in the remaining 13 patients the implants were splinted. Definitive prosthetic restoration was delivered within 1 to 4 months following implant placement. Evaluations of soft tissue health and marginal bone remodeling were conducted. An independent radiologist performed the radiographic evaluation using the top of the implant as the reference point with negative values indicating a level below the reference point. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients, accounting for 66 implants, have passed the 5-year follow-up. No implants have failed resulting in a 5-year cumulative implant survival rate of 100%. Three patients, with six implants, withdrew during the course of the follow-up; one patient passed away and two patients moved. Five patients with seven implants did not show up at 5 years recall. At the 5-year follow-up, majority of the implants that were followed demonstrated normal periimplant mucosa and no visible plaque. The mean bone level at 5-year follow-up was -2.45mm (SD 1.29, n=63) demonstrating a level in line with the first thread. Mean marginal bone loss from implant inserting to 5 years was 0.56 mm (SD 1.98, n=63). In regard with complications, a fracture of the ceramic crown was reported 5 years after implant insertion in a patient who developed bruxism. No other biologic nor mechanical complications were reported. CONCLUSION: This retrospective 5-year follow-up study of 56 patients treated with implants immediately placed in postextraction sockets and immediately loaded demonstrates good treatment outcome with regard to implant survival, soft tissue condition, and marginal bone response.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.119
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.377 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related ResearchSame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207