Cemented CeraOne® and Porcelain Fused to TiAdapt™ Abutment Single‐Implant Crown Restorations: A 10‐Year Comparative Follow‐Up Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-term data comparing cemented and noncemented single-implant restorations has not been reported. AIM: To compare clinical and radiographic performance of single-implant crown restorations made by either directly baked porcelain to custom-made TiAdapt titanium abutments (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) (test) or cement crowns onto CeraOne (Nobel Biocare AB) abutments (control) after 10 years in function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Altogether, 35 consecutive patients were provided with 41 turned single Brånemark System implants (Nobel Biocare AB) in the partially edentulous upper jaw. By random, 15 and 20 patients were provided with 18 test and 23 control implant crowns, respectively. Thereafter, clinical and radiographic data were collected and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: None of the implants were found loose during the follow-up period (100%). Few clinical problems were observed, and the overall average marginal bone loss was 0.26 mm (SD 0.64) during 10 years in function. After the final tightening of the crowns, no significant differences were observed between the test and control groups (p > .05). The head of the implants was placed on an average 6.3 mm (SD 2.24) below the cement/enamel junction of the adjacent teeth (range 2.5-10.0 mm). Implants with reported mechanical and/or mucosal problems or placed more apically in relation to the adjacent teeth did not present more bone loss as compared with implants with no problems or placed more coronally, respectively (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: There seems to be no obvious clinical or radiographic differences between the test and control single-implant restorations during 10 years of follow-up. Occasionally, some restorations presented loose abutment screws and/or fistulas during follow-up. This implies a certain need for maintenance where a one-piece single-implant protocol (test) allows both for a simple clinical procedure at placement without cementation problems, as well as for an easy and simple maintenance of installed single implant crowns in long-term function.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".