MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Immediate Occlusal Loading of Brånemark Implants Applied in Various Jawbone Regions: A Prospective, 1‐Year Clinical Study

2001· article· en· W2029941141 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 · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImplantMaxillaDentistryOcclusionDental prosthesisOrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The original protocol for dental implant treatment ad modum Brånemark was based on submerged healing prior to loading. For patients, immediate implant function could reduce cost and increase attractiveness of implant treatment. PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the short-term success rate of immediately loaded implants placed in various regions of the jaws. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one patients received a total of 127 immediately loaded implants (76 maxillary and 51 mandibular). Seventy-one percent of the patients received their prosthetic restoration the same day and the others within 11 days. All prosthetic constructions were in full contact in centric occlusion. Clinical follow-up examinations were performed at 1 week, 2 weeks, and at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months after implant loading. The study was completed 1 year after loading. RESULTS: Twenty-two implants were lost in 13 patients (including 7 maxillary implants lost in 1 patient). The cumulative success rate of the implants was 82.7% after 1 year of prosthetic loading. All sites with implant losses were re-implanted, using a two-stage technique, with no further complications reported. Ninety-one percent of implants placed in regions other than the posterior maxilla were successful compared with 66% of implants placed in the posterior maxilla. Implants in patients with a parafunctional habit (bruxers) were lost more frequently than those placed in patients with no parafunction (41% vs. 12%). Implants subjected to guided bone regeneration were more successful compared with those not subjected to regeneration procedures (90% vs. 67%). CONCLUSIONS: The immediate loading concept is a realistic treatment alternative in various jawbone regions except for the posterior part of the maxilla. High occlusal loads should be considered a risk factor. On the other hand, implants in combination with bone defects frequently are penetrating cortical layers to a higher extent, thereby contributing to implant stability during the healing phase and consequently do not inevitably jeopardize the treatment result. However, further controlled clinical studies with larger sample sizes need to be performed to evaluate the influence of different parameters on treatment outcome.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.352 · 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