Immediate Loading of Brånemark System Implants®: A Comparison Between TiUnite<sup>TM</sup> and Turned Implants Placed in the Anterior Mandible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to compare the treatment outcome of TiUnite- and turned-surfaced Brånemark System (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) implants when applying immediate loading of cross-arch designed fixed partial dentures in the anterior mandible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients with edentulous mandibles participated in the study. In one half of the jaw, between the exit of the nerve-vessel bundle and the midline, one type of implant was placed and in the remaining half the other type. The implants were loaded the day of surgery via a fixed, temporary supra-construction. Ten days later, the permanent one was screw retained to the implant pillars. RESULTS: The present 18-month clinical trial failed to demonstrate any differences regarding healing and cumulative success rate of an an-oxidized implant surface (TiUnite) and a turned (turned) one when implants in the anterior mandible were exposed to functional load within 24 hours after installation. CONCLUSION: A high predictability regarding the treatment outcome for immediately loaded Brånemark implants in the anterior mandible was observed. Furthermore, no difference between the traditional turned and the an-oxidized implant surface (TiUnite) could be observed. However, it has to be stressed that all implants (irrespective of surface) were placed in the anterior mandible and also that all the patients demonstrated a high level of oral hygiene.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".