Digitally Planned, Immediately Loaded Dental Implants with Prefabricated Prostheses in the Reconstruction of Edentulous Maxillae: A 1‐Year Prospective, Multicenter Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The introduction of digital planning programs has made it possible to place dental implants in preplanned positions and being immediately functionally loaded by using prefabricated prostheses. PURPOSE: The aim of this multicenter study was to describe the 1-year results of digitally planned, immediately loaded edentulous maxillae. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 312 implants (Brånemark System, TiUnite RP, Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden) in 52 patients from eight Scandinavian clinics were digitally planned, surgically as well as prosthetically, by using the NobelGuide (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) and received prefabricated, immediately loaded fixed prosthetic constructions in the maxillae. Individual implant stability was manually tested at 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: All patients received a Procera Implant Bridge (Nobel Biocare AB); however, in two cases, the bridges were reconstructed due to misfit. In five patients, difficulties in getting the surgical guide completely in position, and in five patients, getting the prostheses completely seated, were noted. All but four patients fulfilled the 1-year follow-up. Two implants were lost during the study period, resulting in a cumulative survival rate of 99.4%. The mean marginal bone resorption from implant placement to the 1-year follow-up was 1.3 mm (SD 1.28). More than 2 mm of marginal resorption was noted in 19% of the implants at this instant. The most frequently reported complications during the first year were gingival hyperplasia and prosthesis-related problems (prosthesis screw loosening, occlusal fractures, and occlusal adjustments). CONCLUSION: The 1-year results in this multicenter are promising regarding implant and bridge stability; however, the study is planned to be running for at least 3 years.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".