Parallel Screw Cylinder Implants: Comparative Analysis Between Immediate Loading and Two‐Stage Healing of 1005 Dental Implants with a 2‐Year Follow Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, several authors have focused on the possibility of an immediate functional loading of dental implants to minimize the delay between surgical and prosthetic phases. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was a reevaluation of the XiVE dental implant (Dentsply-Friadent, Mannheim, Germany) with: (1) a longer follow-up period; (2) a higher number of fixture; and (3) a proper statistical method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In July 2001 and December 2002, 371 patients (180 males and 191 females; ages ranging from 17 to 83; mean age, 53 years) were consecutively enrolled in this study. In 371 patients, a total of 1,005 XiVE dental implants were distributed as follows: 484 immediately loaded implants (test group) were inserted in 130 patients, whereas 521 unloaded implants were inserted in 241 patients (control group). RESULTS: The implant survival was 98.7 and 99.4% in immediate loading and control group, respectively. Univariate analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In a previous report, we showed that immediate loading offered a predictable and reliable procedure also for XiVE implants, at least in the short period. In this study, we confirmed the results of the previous study and added information regarding the survival rate and marginal bone level stability with a 2-year 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".