Mk III: A Third Generation of the Self‐Tapping Brånemark System® Implant, Including the New Stargrip Internal Grip Design. A 1‐Year Prospective Four‐Center Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many prospective studies have shown predictable long-term results of the Brånemark System (Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) turned-surface implants in totally edentulous, partially edentulous, and single cases. The Mk III self-tapping implant was introduced by Nobel Biocare in 1999 as part of a new implant generation that improved on the Mk II self-tapping implant that had been introduced in 1992. A new implant design should always be evaluated, preferably in prospective multicenter studies. PURPOSE: The aim of the present prospective multicenter study was to evaluate the short-term success rate of the Brånemark Mk III machined- and turned-surface self-tapping implant and to evaluate the clinical handling of the new Stargrip (Nobel Biocare AB) internal grip design. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The open prospective 1-year multicenter study was performed at four clinics. Sixty-four patients (38 females, 26 males) with a mean age of 51 years (range, 16 to 80 years) were included. Seventeen of the patients were totally edentulous, 26 were partially edentulous, and 21 had single-tooth losses. In total, 194 Mk III implants were inserted, 89 in the maxillas and 105 in the mandibles. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were observed for 1 year after prosthetic loading. Three of 194 implants were lost, corresponding to a cumulative success rate of 98.4% after 1 year, 100% for maxillary implants and 97.1% for mandibular implants. The implant driver carried the implants reliably in 99.5% of all treated patients. Sixty-two patients received the planned prosthetic reconstruction. All but one prosthetic reconstruction survived after 1 year of loading. The mean marginal bone resorption, analyzed from radiographs of 143 implants, was 1.15 mm (standard deviation [SD], 1.09 mm) from the second-stage surgery to the 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: The 1-year success rate of the Mk III implant was high, and the clinical handling of the internal grip design (Stargrip) improved the surgical technique and was well appreciated by both surgeons and assisting staff.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".