Efficacy of standard (<scp>SLA</scp>) and modified sandblasted and acid‐etched (<scp>SLA</scp>ctive) dental implants in promoting immediate and/or early occlusal loading protocols: a systematic review of prospective studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the survival percentage, clinical and radiographic outcomes of sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) dental implants and its modified surface (SLActive) in protocols involving immediate and early occlusal loading. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register CENTRAL were searched in duplicate up to, and including, June 2013 to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies of at least 6-month duration published in all languages. Studies limited to patients treated with SLA and/or SLActive implants involving a treatment protocol describing immediate and early loading of these implants were eligible for inclusion. Data on clinical and/or radiographic outcomes following implant placement were considered for inclusion. RESULTS: Of the 447 potentially eligible publications identified by the search strategy, seven RCTs comprising a total of 853 implants (8% titanium plasma-sprayed, 41.5% SLA and 50.5% SLActive) and 12 prospective observational studies including 1394 SLA and 145 SLActive implants were included in this review. According to the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias, one of the studies was considered to be at a low risk of bias, whereas the remaining studies were considered to be at an unclear risk. Regarding the observational studies, all of them presented a medium methodological quality based on the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. There were no significant differences reported in the studies in relation to implant loss or clinical parameters between the immediate/early loading and delayed loading protocols. Overall, 95% of SLA and 97% of SLActive implants still survive at the end of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Despite of the positive findings achieved by the included studies, few RCTs were available for analysis for SLActive implants. Study heterogeneity, scarcity of data and the lack of pooled estimates represent a limitation between studies' comparisons and should be considered when interpreting the present findings.
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 | 0.015 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".