Immediate Rehabilitation of the Mandible with Fixed Full Prosthesis Supported by Axial and Tilted Implants: Interim Results of a Single Cohort Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aims of this prospective study were to assess the treatment outcome of immediately loaded full-arch fixed bridges anchored to both tilted and axially placed implants for the rehabilitation of the mandible and to compare the outcome of axial versus tilted implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-two patients (34 women and 28 men) were included in the study. Each patient received a full-arch fixed bridge supported by two axial implants and two distal tilted implants (All-on-Four, Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden). Loading was applied within 48 hours of surgery. Patients were scheduled for follow-up at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, and annually up to 5 years. At each follow-up, plaque level and bleeding scores were assessed; moreover, patient's satisfaction for aesthetics and function was evaluated by a questionnaire. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level change was performed at 1 year. RESULTS: The overall follow-up range was 6 to 43 months (mean 22.4 months). Forty-four patients were followed for a minimum of 1 year. No implant failures were recorded to date, leading to a cumulative implant survival and prosthesis success rate of 100%. Plaque level and bleeding scores showed progressive decrease over time, parallel to increase of satisfaction for both aesthetics and function. No significant difference in marginal bone loss was found between tilted and axial implants at 1-year evaluation. CONCLUSION: The present preliminary data suggest that immediate loading associated with tilted implants could be considered a viable treatment modality for the mandible.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".