Clinical Performance of a Method for the Fabrication of Implant‐Supported Precisely Fitting Titanium Frameworks: A Retrospective 5‐ to 8‐Year Clinical Follow‐Up Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The CrescoTi Precision (CTiP) method (CrescoTi Systems, Lausanne, Switzerland) has been introduced as an alternative method for the fabrication of precisely fitting titanium frameworks. The method is supposed to be used with all major implant systems, without the need for abutments. PURPOSE: The objectives of this clinical and radiographic retrospective follow-up study were to report the clinical performances of "CTiP-fabricated" frameworks that are screw retained directly to Brånemark implants as opposed to Brånemark implant/abutment assemblies (Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) and to compare the clinical outcomes of these two modalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients were provided with 46 fixed prostheses supported by 207 Brånemark regular-platform implants. Twenty-seven prostheses were placed on implant/abutment assemblies, and 19 were placed directly at "implant level." The prostheses had been in function for 5 to 8 years at the time of the final examinations. RESULTS: Three patients did not attend the final examination. All 43 prostheses in the 33 examined patients were still in function. No major mechanical framework complications were observed during the observation period. One implant was lost after loading. There was no difference in bone loss around the abutment-free implants when compared with the implants provided with abutments. CONCLUSIONS: This long-term clinical test demonstrated that the CTiP technology constitutes a reliable prosthetic treatment concept in combination with Brånemark implants. The results also revealed that the frameworks could be connected directly to the implants without any negative consequences.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".