Implant Stability, Tissue Conditions, and Patient Self‐Evaluation after Treatment with Osseointegrated Implants in the Posterior Mandible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implant treatment in the posterior mandible is considered challenging because of bone resorption and the presence of the inferior alveolar nerve, which may result in the use of short implants. PURPOSE: To evaluate implant stability, tissue conditions, and patient opinion after treatment with implant-supported bridges in the posterior mandible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients treated with implant-supported bridges in the posterior mandible according to a two-stage protocol were clinically and radiographically examined and interviewed after a mean functional time of 3.9 years. One hundred five Brånemark implants (Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) were placed in premolar and molar regions to support 40 bridges. Twenty-eight implants were placed anterior to the mental foramen, and 77 implants were placed posterior to the mental foramen. Bridges were supported either by two or by three implants. After 2 to 6 years, the bridges were removed to analyze the resonance frequency of the implants with the use of a special instrument (Osstell instrument, Integration Diagnostics AB, Gothenburg, Sweden), and an implant stability quotient (ISQ) was recorded for each implant. RESULTS: One implant was lost. An ISQ range of 59 to 90 (mean, 70.05) expressed stability of fully integrated implants in the posterior mandible. Significantly higher (p < .024) ISQ values were found in implants in three-implant bridges when compared with implants in two-implant bridges. There were no differences in ISQ values between molars/premolars, implant types, implant widths, implant lengths, anchoring depth, or uni- or bilateral mandibular bridges. Good mucosal health in the periimplant soft tissue and minor bone resorption around the implants were observed. Patients were generally very satisfied with the treatment outcome. CONCLUSIONS: High implant stability can be reached in the posterior mandible. The implants were more stable in three-implant bridges than in two-implant bridges. The patients were highly satisfied with the treatment, and few complications were seen.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".