Provisional Implants: A Clinical Prospective Study in 45 Patients, from Implant Placement to Delivery of the Final Bridge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Protocols for submerged healing of dental implants often require the patient to have no teeth until suture removal and to wear a removable prosthesis during the remaining healing period. This may be inconvenient for the patient, and healing may be influenced negatively by the removable prosthesis. PURPOSE: The aim of the present prospective clinical study was to evaluate the use of provisional implants (PIs) to provide patients with a provisional fixed bridge during the healing of permanent implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty female and 25 male patients were consecutively included in the study. The 45 patients were treated for either partial (16 patients) or total (29 patients) edentulism in the maxilla. The permanent implants were placed first; as many PIs as possible were then installed between the permanent implants. After suturing, impressions from which to manufacture provisional bridges (to be cemented to the PIs) were taken. The patients were monitored with clinical and radiographic follow-up from implant placement to delivery of the final prosthesis. RESULTS: Five (2.2%) of the 230 permanent Brånemark System implants (Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) did not integrate. None of the failures could be related to the presence of PIs between the permanent implants. Seven PIs failed during the observation period. In addition, 17 (9%) of the 192 PIs showed mobility at the second-stage surgery although they had supported the provisional bridges without clinical symptoms. Forty-four of 45 patients showed stabile PI bridges at the time of second-stage surgery. CONCLUSION: Based on our experiences we concluded that provisional implants can be successfully used to provide patients with a fixed provisional bridge during the healing of permanent implants.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".