MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical Experiences with Laser‐Welded Titanium Frameworks Supported by Implants in the Edentulous Mandible: A 10‐Year Follow‐Up Study

2006· article· en· W1976458705 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anders Örtorp, Torsten Jemt

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTitaniumDentistryImplantMedicineEdentulismAbutmentOrthodonticsMaterials scienceSurgeryMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Long-term follow-up studies for more than 5 years are not available on laser-welded titanium frameworks. PURPOSE: To report and compare 10-year data on implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous mandible provided with laser-welded titanium frameworks and conventional gold alloy frameworks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Altogether, 155 patients were consecutively treated with prostheses at abutment level with two generations of fixed laser-welded titanium frameworks (test groups). A control group of 53 randomly selected patients with conventional gold alloy castings was used for comparison. Clinical and radiographic 10-year data were collected for the three groups. RESULTS: All patients followed-up for 10 years (n=112) still had fixed prostheses in the mandible (cumulative success rate [CSR] 100%). The overall 10-year cumulative success rate (CSR) was 92.8 and 100.0% for titanium and gold alloy frameworks, respectively. Ten-year implant cumulative survival rate (CSR) was 99.4 and 99.6% for the test and control groups, respectively. Average 10-year bone loss was 0.56 (SD 0.45) mm for the titanium group and 0.77 (SD 0.36) mm for the control group (p < 0.05). The most common complications for titanium frameworks were resin or veneer fractures, soft tissue inflammation, and fractures (12.9%) of the metal frame. Loose and fractured implant screw components were below 3%. CONCLUSION: Excellent overall long-term results with 100% CSR could be achieved with the present treatment modality. Fractures of the metal frames and remade prostheses were more common for the laser-welded titanium frameworks, and the first generation of titanium frameworks worked poorly when compared with gold alloy frameworks during 10 years (p < 0.05). However, on average more bone loss was observed for implants supporting gold alloy frameworks during 10 years. The reasons for this difference are not clear.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.457
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

Citations65
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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