MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Immediate Loading of Brånemark System® TiUnite™ and Machined‐Surface Implants in the Posterior Mandible: A Randomized Open‐Ended Clinical Trial

2003· article· en· W2015627252 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImplantMedicineMandible (arthropod mouthpart)DentistryRadiographyBiomaterialRandomized controlled trialOrthodonticsMaterials scienceBiomedical engineeringSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Immediate loading of osseointegrating implants shortens the treatment time and makes it possible to give the patient an esthetic appearance during the whole treatment period. A previous retrospective clinical study showed a success rate of 94.2% after 1 year of immediate loading of fixed partial constructions in the maxilla supported by machined-surface implants. The recently introduced Brånemark System TiUnite (Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) surface has been shown to better maintain primary implant stability and to help achieve secondary stability earlier compared with the machined surface. PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to compare TiUnite and machined-surfaced Brånemark System implants when applying immediate loading of partial fixed bridges in the posterior mandible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-four patients were randomized for test and control therapy. In the test group, 22 patients received 66 Brånemark System TiUnite surface implants supporting 24 fixed partial bridges, all of which were connected on the day of implant insertion. In the control group, 22 patients received 55 Brånemark System machined-surface implants supporting 22 fixed partial bridges, which also were connected on the day of implant insertion. All constructions were two- to four-unit bridges. Bone quality and quantity were assessed. Radiographic examinations were performed on the day of surgery/loading and at the 1-year follow-up visit. RESULTS: Three TiUnite and eight machined-surface implants failed during the first 7 weeks of loading. This resulted in a cumulative success rate of 95.5% for TiUnite surface implants after 1 year of prosthetic load in the posterior mandible. The corresponding cumulative success rate for machined-surface implants was 85.5%. When using the machined-surface implants, the number of failed implants was significantly higher in smokers and in bone quality 4 sites. Such findings were not seen with the use of TiUnite implants, despite the fact that there were more smokers and more implants placed in bone quality 4 in this group. The marginal bone resorption after 1 year of loading was on average 0.9 mm (SD 0.7 mm) with the TiUnite implants and 1.0 mm (SD 0.9 mm) with the machined implants. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated a 10% higher success rate following immediate loading of partial fixed bridges in the posterior mandible supported by TiUnite surface implants compared with success with machined implants. When using the machined implants, the number of failed implants was significantly higher in smokers and in bone quality 4 sites. Such findings were not seen following the use of TiUnite implants.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.179
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it