MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029642463 · doi:10.1563/aaid-joi-d-12-00210

LASER Sintered One-Piece Early-Loaded Dental Implants for Mandibular Premolars Replacement

2013· article· en· W2029642463 on OpenAlexaff
Mona El-Gammal, Nahed Ghoneem, Heba Tawfik, Manal Abou Madina, Ola M. Maria

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oral Implantology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMansoura University
KeywordsDentistryMedicinePremolarRadiographyImplantOrthodonticsMolarSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was designed to evaluate laser-sintered early-loaded 1-piece implants (OPI) based on clinical and radiographic findings. Thirty OPI were placed in the mandibular premolar area and subjected to early loading after 3 weeks of initial placement; patients were followed up for 6 months. Clinical evaluation included pocket depth, gingival health, implant stability, and esthetics. Periapical radiographs were used to measure the marginal bone loss (MBL). All implants were considered successful resulting in a survival rate of 100%. A remarkable difference (P < 0.01) existed when comparing MBL levels at 1 month with those at 3 and 6 months. Significant differences (P < 0.01) existed when comparing implant stability at 1 month to 3 months and at 3 months to 6 months. Moreover, significant differences (P < 0.01) were observed when comparing peri-implant probing depth at 1 month to that at 3 and 6 months on both the mesial and distal sides. The mean value of pink esthetic score was 11 at time of final restoration. The laser-treated early-loaded OPI design is associated with satisfactory clinical and radiographic follow-up results and it is a good alternative to the 2-piece design.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Oral ImplantologySame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207