Early Loading after 21 Days of Healing of Nonsubmerged Titanium Implants with a Chemically Modified Sandblasted and Acid‐Etched Surface: Two‐Year Results of a Prospective Two‐Center Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this two-center study was to evaluate screw-type titanium implants with a chemically modified, sandblasted and acid-etched surface when placed in the posterior maxilla or mandible, and loaded 21 days after placement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All 56 patients met strict inclusion criteria and provided informed consent. Each patient displayed either a single-tooth gap, an extended edentulous space, or a distal extension situation in the posterior mandible or maxilla. Eighty-nine dental implants (SLActive, Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) were inserted according to an established nonsubmerged protocol and underwent undisturbed healing for a period of 21 days. Where appropriate, the implants were loaded after 21 days of healing with provisional restorations in full occlusion. Definitive metal ceramic restorations were fabricated and positioned on each implant after 6 months of healing. Clinical measurements regarding soft tissue parameters and radiographs were obtained at different time points up to 24 months after implant placement. RESULTS: Of the 89 inserted implants, two (2.2%) implants failed to integrate and were removed during healing, and two (2.2%) additional implants required a prolonged healing time. A total of 85 (95.6%) implants were therefore loaded without incident after 21 days of healing. No additional implant was lost throughout the study period, whereas one implant was lost to follow-up and therefore left unaccounted for further analysis. The remaining 86 implants all exhibited favorable radiographic and clinical findings. Based on strict success criteria, these implants were considered successfully integrated 2 years after insertion, resulting in a 2-year success rate of 97.7%. CONCLUSION: The results of this prospective two-center study demonstrate that titanium implants with a modified SLA surface can predictably achieve successful tissue integration when loaded in full occlusion 21 days after placement. Integration could be maintained without incident for at least 2 years of follow-up.
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) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".