MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Direct Implant Loading in the Edentulous Maxilla Using a Bone Density–Adapted Surgical Protocol and Primary Implant Stability Criteria for Inclusion

2005· article· en· W2025462635 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 · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDentistryImplantMedicineMaxillaProtocol (science)OsseointegrationAnterior maxillaOrthodonticsBone densityOsteoporosisSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Long healing periods and submerged implant placement are commonly used in the maxilla. This extends the time of oral handicap and makes the use of immediate loading protocols an attractive option. The current clinical literature on direct loading of dental implants in the maxilla is limited. PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective clinical study was to evaluate the clinical outcome and stability of directly loaded Brånemark System or Replace Select Tapered implants (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) after using a modified surgical protocol and inclusion by primary implant stability. In addition, a reference group treated according to a two-stage protocol was used for comparison. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients planned for prosthetic rehabilitation with implant-supported bridges in the edentulous maxilla participated in the study group. The final decision on immediate loading was made after implant placement using insertion torque and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) as acceptance criteria. All patients were included, and 123 oxidized implants (TiUnite, Nobel Biocare AB) were placed using a surgical protocol for enhanced primary stability. A screw-retained temporary bridge was delivered within 12 hours and a final bridge within 3 months of implant placement. The patients were monitored through clinical and radiographic follow-up examinations from implant placement to at least 12 months. Marginal bone level was measured at bridge delivery and after 12 months of loading. Additional RFA measurements were made after 6 months of loading. A reference group comprising 20 patients with 120 implants treated according to a two-stage protocol was used for comparison. RESULTS: One (0.8%) of the 123 implants in the study group failed, and no implant was lost in the reference group. The cumulative survival rates after 12 months of loading were thus 99.2% and 100% for immediate and delayed loading protocols, respectively. The marginal bone resorption was 0.78 (SD 0.9) in the study group and 0.91 (SD 1.04) in the reference group. RFA showed a mean value of 62.9 (SD 4.9) implant stability quotient (ISQ) at placement and 64.5 (SD 4.8) ISQ after 6 months for immediately loaded implants (not significant). The corresponding figures for the reference groups were 61.3 (SD 8.8) ISQ and 62.6 (SD 7.0) ISQ (not significant). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups at any time point. CONCLUSION: The use of six to seven implants for immediate loading of a fixed provisional bridge is a viable option for implant treatment of the edentulous maxilla, at least when good primary implant stability can be ensured.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.321 · 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