Clinical Experience of TiUnite™ Implants: A 5‐year Cross‐Sectional, Retrospective Follow‐Up Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known of the long-term clinical and radiographic performance of moderately rough surface implants. PURPOSE: The aim of the present retrospective investigation was to study two pioneer cohorts of patients, that is, the first patients to receive Brånemark System implants with a moderately rough surface (TiUnite, Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) at the present clinic. TiUnite implants were inserted either in compromised bone sites in a mixed-mouth concept together with turned implants or used solely. Patients were followed up over a period of 5 years with regard to implant survival and the marginal bone response. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who received both implant types (mixed group) comprised 41 subjects, and the second group (TiUnite group) comprised 70 subjects. A total of 110 turned and 68 TiUnite implants were placed in the mixed group, and 212 TiUnite implants in the TiUnite group. Follow-up radiographs were obtained at prosthesis placement and at the 1- and 5-year check-ups, and examined by independent observers. RESULTS: One turned (0.9%) and two TiUnite (2.9%) implants failed in the mixed group, and three implants (1.6%) failed in the TiUnite group, indicating no significant differences between surfaces or groups (p < .05). The mean marginal bone loss at 5 years was 0.6 mm to 0.8 mm, also indicating no significant differences for the two implant types tested in the mixed group. CONCLUSIONS: Cumulative survival rates for the two implant surfaces were favorable at 5 years, and the marginal bone loss was low and similar for both implant surfaces.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".