MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Histologic Analysis of Clinically Retrieved Immediately Loaded Titanium Implants: A Report of 11 Cases

2003· article· en· W2027660444 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marco Degidi, Antônio Scarano, Giovanna Petrone, Adriano Piattelli

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrephineOsseointegrationDentistryImplantMedicineTitaniumMaterials scienceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Several investigators have reported high survival rates for early or immediately loaded dental implants. PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to analyze histologically the periimplant tissue reactions and the bone-titanium interface of clinically retrieved immediately loaded titanium implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven implants were inserted in the posterior jaw regions of six patients, serving as the most distal abutments of fixed provisional bridges and subjected to immediate occlusal loading. After a 10-month loading period, all 11 implants were retrieved with a trephine. RESULTS: Mature bone was present at the interface of all implants. Some vertical bone loss was observed; this was more pronounced for cylindric implants. The bone-implant contact was approximately 60 to 65% for all implants. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that osseointegration of dental implants can occur during immediate loading.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.182
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→