MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Tapered Implants in Jaws with Soft Bone Quality: A Clinical and Radiographie 1‐Year Study of the Brånemark System Mark IV Fixture

2003· article· en· W1977619332 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Per‐Olof Åstrand, Camilla Billström, Hartmut Feldmann, Kerstin Fischer, Vincent Henricsson, Björn Johansson, Elisabeth Nyström, Bo Sunzel

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbutmentImplantMedicineDentistrySoft tissueMaxillaDental AbutmentsOrthodonticsSurgeryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The survival rate of oral implants in soft-quality bone has been demonstrated to be inferior to that of implants inserted in good-quality bone. A possible way to increase the survival rate in soft-quality bone may be to use a tapered implant. Such an implant has been developed and manufactured by Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden. So far, there have been only a few publications regarding this implant. PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to compare the outcome of using the tapered Brånemark System Mark IV fixture with the outcome of using earlier Brånemark fixtures in a controlled prospective study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was performed as a multicenter study including seven specialist centers. The material consisted of 40 patients in need of implant-supported bridges in the maxilla. Twenty-five patients belonged to the test group, in which the tapered Mark IV implants were inserted, and 15 patients belonged to the control group, in which Brånemark Standard or Mark II implants were used. The patients were allocated to the test group or the control group according to randomization schedules. The implants were inserted according to the guidelines for Brånemark implants. A two-stage surgical protocol was used, and abutment connection was made 6 months after fixture insertion. The test group comprised 97 Mark IV implants, and the control group made up 92 implants. The prosthetic procedure followed the guidelines for Brånemark implants, and all patients were provided with full fixed maxillary bridges. The patients were followed up with clinical and radiographic records for 1 year after loading. RESULTS: The survival rate was 96.9% for the Mark IV implants and 98.9% for the control implants. There was no significant difference between the two groups. There was a mean marginal bone loss of 0.2 mm during the observation period, and there was no difference between test implants and control implants. CONCLUSIONS: With regard to survival rate and marginal bone level changes, no differences could be demonstrated between the Mark IV tapered implant and the Brånemark implants used earlier. However, compared with earlier results of Brånemark implants in soft-quality bone, the Mark IV implant demonstrated an improved survival rate.

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)0.004
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 score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
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)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Citations36
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→