Two‐Year Outcome with Nobel Direct® Implants: A Retrospective Radiographic and Microbiologic Study in 10 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Nobel Direct implant (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) was developed to minimize marginal bone resorption and to result in "soft tissue integration" for an optimized aesthetic outcome. However, conflicting results have been presented in the literature. The aim of this present study was to evaluate the clinical and microbiologic outcomes of Nobel Direct implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten partially edentulous subjects without evidence of active periodontitis (mean age 55 years) received 12 Nobel Direct implants. Implants were loaded with single crowns after a healing period of 3 to 6 months. Treatment outcomes were assessed at month 24. Routine clinical assessments, intraoral radiographs, and microbiologic samplings were made. Histologic analysis of one failing implant and chemical spectroscopy around three unused implants was performed. Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for the evaluation of bone loss; otherwise, descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: Implants were functionally loaded after 3 to 6 months. At 2 years, the mean bone loss of remaining implants was 2.0 mm (SD +/- 1.1 mm; range: 0.0-3.4 mm). Three out of 12 implants with an early mean bone loss >3 mm were lost. The surviving implants showed increasing bone loss between 6 and 24 months (p = .028). Only 3 out of the 12 implants were considered successful and showed bone loss of <1.7 mm after 2 years. High rates of pathogens, including Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Fusobacterium spp., Porphyromonas gingivalis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Tanerella forsythia, were found. Chemical spectroscopy revealed, despite the normal signals from Ti, O, and C, also peaks of P, F, S, N, and Ca. A normal histologic image of osseointegration was observed in the apical part of the retrieved implant. CONCLUSION: Radiographic evidence and 25% implant failures are indications of a low success rate. High counts and prevalence of significant pathogens were found at surviving implants. Although extensive bone loss had occurred in the coronal part, the apical portion of the implant showed some bone to implant integration.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".