Immediate and Delayed Implant Placement Into Extraction Sockets: A 5‐Year Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As a complement to the earlier reported 3-year results from a prospective multicenter study of immediate and delayed placement of implants into fresh extraction sockets, the 5-year results are reported. PURPOSE: The purpose of this 5-year report was to evaluate the immediate and long-term success of implants placed into fresh extraction sockets, with respect to implant size and type, bone quality and quantity, implant position, initial socket depth, and reason for tooth extraction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This paper presents the 5-year results of the original 12 centers that participated with 143 consecutively included patients. A total of 264 implants were placed either immediately after tooth extraction or after a short soft-tissue healing time (3-5 weeks). The patients were divided into five subgroups, depending on the type of insertion method used. RESULTS: The outcome demonstrated that the cumulative implant survival rate after 5 years of loading has not changed and remains 92.4% in the maxilla and 94.7% in the mandible. No difference in failure rates can be seen between the groups when relating the failures to insertion method. CONCLUSION: This prospective study demonstrated that placing Brånemark implants into fresh extraction sites can be successful over a period of 5 years of loading. One of the outcomes of the study shows that there is a clinical correlation between implant failure and periodontitis as a reason for tooth extraction, even if it is difficult to give it a casual association. It can be hypothesized that periodontitis affected tissues might have a negative local influence because of the presence of infrabony defects that could possibly increase the gap between bone and implant or jeopardize achievement of primary stability.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 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".