Clinical and Histologic Findings for Microimplants Placed in One Stage and Loaded for Three Months: A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implants are placed in either one or two stages. There is an absence of histologic human evidence relating to implant integration after loading. PURPOSE: The purpose of this case report was to present clinical and histologic findings for smooth-surfaced titanium turned microimplants placed in one stage and loaded after healing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five one-piece microimplants were placed in a fully edentulous mandible. Three microimplants (tests) were placed in one stage and extended through the keratinized mucosa for 3 mm. Two additional microimplants (controls) were placed even with the mucosa. After 3 months of healing, three test implants were loaded for an additional 3 months. At this time, three loaded implants and one control were removed en bloc. RESULTS: Histologic and histometric evaluations were made. For all specimens, there was excellent bone-to-implant contact. The loaded implants had from two to four exposed threads. Using marginal bone levels as the reference, the highest percentage of bone-to-implant contact was noted with the unloaded control implant (92.2%). One nonaxially loaded implant had 66.9% bone-to-implant contact, whereas the axially loaded implants (n = 2) had 77.8% bone-to-implant contact. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this case report, smooth-surfaced, titanium threaded microimplants placed in one stage and loaded for 3 months demonstrated excellent osseointegration, with varying bone-to-implant contact. The amount of bone-to-implant contact may be related to axial implant loading.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".