One‐Stage Operative Procedure Using Two Different Implant Systems: A Prospective Study on Implant Overdentures in the Edentulous Mandible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based reports are needed to support the application of a one-stage surgical protocol for unsplinted implants supporting mandibular overdentures. PURPOSE: To examine the feasibility and success of using two different dental implant systems (originally designed for two-stage operative technique) using a one-stage operative procedure in patients being rehabilitated with implant mandibular overdentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study sample involved 24 edentulous subjects (aged 55-80 yr) randomly allocated to two different implant systems, one with a machined titanium implant surface (Steri-Oss, Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden) and the other with a roughened titanium surface (Southern Implants, Ltd., Irene, South Africa). Two unsplinted implants to support implant overdentures were placed in the anterior mandible of all patients, using a standardized one-stage surgical and prosthodontic procedure. Primary stability and bicortical anchorage of the implants was mandatory before healing abutments were connected at the time of implant placement. Implant overdentures and their respective matrices were inserted following a standard 12-week healing period. Data relating to mobility tests, radiographs, and peri-implant parameters were documented at 12, 16, and 52 weeks after surgery. RESULTS: A success rate of 95.8% for the Steri-Oss and 100% for the Southern Implants was found, without any statistically significant differences in the marginal bone loss. Significant changes in Periotest values were observed for both types between 12 and 52 weeks (p < .001). Minor changes were observed in the peri-implant parameters evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary findings show a successful application of this one-stage approach for unsplinted implants supporting mandibular overdentures with Steri-Oss and Southern Implant Systems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".