Turned Brånemark System® Implants in Wide and Narrow Edentulous Maxillae: A Retrospective Clinical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The available jawbone volume is regarded as one of the most important factors when assessing the prognosis of oral implants in the rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla. PURPOSE: The aim of the current investigation was to retrospectively evaluate and compare the outcome of implants placed in edentulous maxillae with either wide or narrow jaw shapes. The marginal bone loss and implant cumulative survival rates (CSRs) were calculated and analyzed with special reference to smoking habits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 75 individuals with edentulous maxillae, of which 33 patients exhibited wide (group A) and 42 patients exhibited narrow jaw shapes (group B). A total of 506 turned Brånemark System (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) implants were inserted (226 in group A and 279 in group B) and followed clinically up to 7 years. Smoking habits were recorded. Radiographs were obtained at connection of prostheses, and at the 1- and 5-year follow-up visit. The marginal bone loss was calculated for the groups and analyzed using t-test. RESULTS: Twenty-eight implants were lost during the study period, revealing implant CSRs at 7 years of 94.6% (11/226) and 93.6% (17/279) for wide and narrow crests, respectively. No difference in marginal bone loss was seen between the two groups, although a trend toward more bone loss was recorded for patients with wide crests. Smoking habits were more common in group A (45%) than in group B (31%). During the first year of function, smokers lost significantly more marginal bone than nonsmokers (p = .0447), albeit this difference did not prevail (p > .05) at the end of the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The implant CSRs at 7 years were equally good for the two groups of patients with various jaw shapes. Initially, smokers showed significantly more marginal bone loss than nonsmokers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".