Survival of NobelDirect Implants: An Analysis of 550 Consecutively Placed Implants at 18 Different Clinical Centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A recently introduced implant, the NobelDirect (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden), has previously been documented with substantial bone resorption in a large number of operated cases. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the failure rate of NobelDirect implants in a retrospective multicenter survey. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 550 NobelDirect implants consecutively placed in over 269 patients at 18 centers were evaluated with regard to failure rate after an average follow-up of about 1 year. RESULTS: The overall failure percentage was 10.9% (59 failures). The 58 implants not loaded directly showed only one failure (1.7%) versus 58 failures (11.8%) of those implants that were loaded directly. A chemical x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy analysis of an implant from the original batch showed up to 3.5% silicon at parts of the implants. A retrieval analysis of one implant removed at 2 years after placement demonstrated bone resorption down to the level of the fifth thread. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that the NobelDirect implant, if placed with a punch procedure, ground down in situ, and loaded directly, shows an unusually high failure rate at 1 year.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".