Marginal Bone Resorption at Different Treatment Concepts Using Brånemark Dental Implants in Anterior Mandibles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Different implant treatment modalities, one- and two-step surgery, and one-step surgery combined with early functional loading have successfully been used in the anterior mandible for rehabilitation of edentulism. However, the marginal bone remodeling has not been compared among the three different techniques. PURPOSE: The purpose was to compare the marginal bone level in a short- and long-term perspective study using Brånemark dental implants placed according to either a one- or a two-step surgical procedure or a one-step surgical procedure combined with early functional loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven patients were treated with a split-mouth technique with a one-step surgical technique on one side and a two-step technique on the other side. In this latter group, the fixtures were submerged during a 3- to 4-month healing period before abutment connection and loading. In 13 patients, following one-step surgery, the permanent prosthetic suprastructure was connected within 20 days from implant surgery. All patients were operated on by the same surgeon. The level of the marginal bone was radiographically measured relative to the fixture-abutment junction and was followed up to 5 years from fixture installation. RESULTS: After connection of the supraconstruction, the marginal bone resorption was significantly lower in the early functional loading group compared to the one- and two-step surgical technique groups. However, after 18 months and after 5 years, the marginal bone was located approximately 1 mm apical to the fixture-abutment level in all three groups. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in marginal bone resorption in a long-term perspective between one- and two-step surgical procedures and a one-step surgical procedure with early functional loading of Brånemark dental 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".