A Retrospective Analysis of Early and Delayed Loading of Full‐Arch Mandibular Prostheses Using Three Different Implant Systems: Clinical Results with Up to 5 Years of Loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early loading of implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous mandible is widely accepted, but do the clinical results replicate those of delayed loading? PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcome and patient satisfaction with early or delayed loading in patients treated with fixed prostheses, using three different implant systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and nine consecutively treated patients received 490 implants supporting fixed prostheses; 82 patients with Brånemark System implants (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden), 16 with Astra Tech implants (Astra Tech AB Dental Implant system, Mölndal, Sweden), and 11 with ITI MonoType implants (ITI Dental Implant System, Institute Straumann AG, Waldenburg, Switzerland). Prostheses were placed within 2 to 3 weeks in 55 patients; 54 patients underwent a two-stage procedure. Data were collected from patient records and radiographs; 83 patients attended a clinical examination and received a questionnaire. RESULTS: All patients had fixed prostheses at follow-up with a mean observation time of 3.5 years. Cumulative survival rates (CSRs) were 92.5% of prostheses and 94.4% of implants for early loading, and 98.0 and 97.9% for delayed loading. The mean radiographic bone loss after the first year was small, and at 5 years less than 0.2 mm for both groups. With early loading, significantly more prostheses (p < .05) needed adjustment or replacement. CONCLUSION: Statistically significantly more prostheses needed adjustment or replacement in the early group. The present study suggested lower CSRs for prostheses and implants in the early loading group after 5 years; the difference was not statistically significant. Larger study samples are needed to verify statistically small differences between treatment techniques.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".