MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Immediate Replacement of Single Upper Posterior Teeth: A Report of Cases

2003· article· en· W2052899044 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jaime A. Vergara, Raúl G. Caffesse

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDentistryMolarSinus (botany)Maxillary sinusSoft tissueImplantOrthodonticsProtocol (science)Surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The immediate replacement of upper molar teeth with implants poses a significant challenge to the clinician because of its sinus involvement. PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to report a protocol in which single molar teeth are replaced immediately with implants, minimizing the need for other surgical procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This protocol has been employed in eight cases. Briefly, the teeth are extracted atraumatically, the sockets evaluated, an osteotomy performed following the direction of the socket, and a wide diameter implant placed using the socket walls and sinus floor to anchor it. A grafting material is placed when the space between implant and socket wall is considerably large. Three cases are reviewed here, and all eight are summarized. RESULTS: All cases have excellent soft and hard tissue healing after 6 months. Furthermore, the overall time needed to restore the cases has been considerably reduced and the need for sinus management eliminated. CONCLUSION: The cases presented support the use of the described protocol in the placement of implants in maxillary molar areas without any other sinus procedures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.158
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→