Laser‐Welded Titanium Frameworks Supported by Implants in the Partially Edentulous Mandible: A 10‐Year Comparative Follow‐Up Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comparative long-term knowledge of different framework materials in the partially edentulous implant patient is not available. PURPOSE: To report and compare 10-year data on free-standing implant-supported partial prostheses with laser-welded titanium (test) and conventional gold alloy (control) frameworks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Altogether, 52 partially edentulous patients were consecutively provided with laser-welded prostheses (n = 60) in the partially edentulous lower jaw (test group). A control group of 52 randomly selected patients with gold alloy castings (n = 60) was used for comparison. Clinical and radiographic 10-year data were retrospectively collected and evaluated for both groups. RESULTS: The overall 10-year implant cumulative survival rate (CSR) was 93.0% (loaded implants, 96.4%), with a 10-year implant CSR of 91.5 and 94.7% for test and control implants, respectively (p > .05). Out of a total of 22 lost implants, 17 implants (77.3%) were shorter than 10 mm. The overall 10-year prosthesis CSR was 93.7%, with a corresponding 10-year CSR of 88.4 and 100% for test and control groups, respectively (p < .05). Average 10-year bone loss was 0.46 mm (SD 0.47) and 0.69 mm (SD 0.53) for the test and control groups (p < .001), respectively. Only 1% of the implants had >3 mm accumulated bone loss after 10 years. Altogether, 10 of the prostheses in both groups had implant component mechanical problems (8.3%). None of the frameworks or implants fractured, but more fractures of porcelain veneers were observed in the test group (p < .05). CONCLUSION: The protocol of implant treatment in the partially edentulous jaw functioned well during 10 years, although prosthodontic maintenance was required. However, laser-welded titanium frameworks presented more problems as compared with gold alloy frameworks. More loaded implants were lost (p < .05), and higher incidence of porcelain chipping was noted in the test group (p < .05). However, bone loss was on an average lower for the test group during the 10 years of follow-up (p < .001).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".