Moderately Roughened‐ and Roughened‐Surface Implants Used as Rigid Orthodontic Anchorage: A Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Osseointegrated implants, especially Brånemark turned-surface implants, have been shown to function as stable and efficient orthodontic anchors. While it is generally accepted that prostheses can be attached to implants that have been used as anchors, it has not been clarified if the same applies to moderately roughened- and roughened-surface implants. PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to assess the differences between moderately roughened- and roughened-surface implants that are used as orthodontic anchors and then bonded with prostheses and those that are bonded with prostheses without serving as orthodontic anchors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 43 moderately roughened- and roughened-surface implants (ITI titanium plasma spray TPS] Straumann AG, Waldenburg, Switzerland], ITI sandblasted large-grit acid-etched SLA] Straumann AG], Nobel TiUnite Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden]) were placed in 11 partially edentulous patients, aged 35-61 years (two men and nine women). After an appropriate healing period, orthodontic therapy was performed in 11 patients using 27 implants as orthodontic anchors. After completion of the orthodontic therapy, the prostheses were attached at the same time to both types of implants: the 27 implants that were used as anchors, and 16 implants that were not used as anchors. All 11 patients were followed up regularly. RESULTS: Regardless of use as orthodontic anchorage, all implants maintained osseointegration and continued to function properly. CONCLUSION: No differences existed in therapeutic results after prosthesis bonding whether or not moderately roughened- and roughened-surface implants were used as orthodontic anchors.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".