A 3-Year Retrospective Study of Cresco Frameworks: Preload and Complications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective clinical study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of fixed implant-supported complete prostheses on Astra or Brånemark implants when using either conventional cast frameworks or frameworks produced according to the Cresco Ti Precision method (Cresco Ti Systems Sàrl., Lausanne, Switzerland). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-six patients treated 3 years previously were divided into four groups according to implant system and framework design. Clinical examinations were performed and case records were scrutinized. The stability for each prosthesis retention screw was recorded as the torque profile and was monitored using the Osseocare torque controller (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden). Complications in association with implants and superstructures were registered. Patient opinions were recorded. The significance level was set to 5%. RESULTS: The Astra-Cresco group demonstrated a lower degree of prosthesis retention screw stability compared with the Astra group. No differences among the four groups were seen regarding plaque, bleeding on probing, or marginal bone resorption. The Brånemark group (Brånemark System, Nobel Biocare AB) demonstrated more mechanical complications than the Brånemark-Cresco group. Mobile prostheses were found in the Brånemark and the Astra-Cresco groups. Fracture of veneer was seen in 20% of the prostheses and was more frequently found in the groups with mobile prostheses. Sixty percent of the prostheses showed reactions in the surrounding soft tissues. The most common reaction was mucosal proliferation. No differences were detected in the patients' opinions. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this retrospective study, the following can be concluded: (1) compared with conventional frameworks, the Cresco distortion correction method does not provide a better clinical outcome after prosthesis connection in patients with fixed implant-supported complete prostheses; and (2) the two framework-producing methods behave differently on Astra implants compared with Brånemark implants concerning prosthesis retention screw stability, mechanical and biologic complications, and reactions in patients with fixed implant-supported complete prostheses.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".