Measurements of Soft Tissue Volume in Association with Single‐Implant Restorations: A 1‐Year Comparative Study after Abutment Connection Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with buccal defects due to tooth extraction seem to regain some of the contour at the time of abutment surgery and connection of single-implant crown restorations. It can then be assumed that different abutment systems could restore the buccal contour to different degrees. PURPOSE: To measure changes in buccal tissue volume after placing restorations with single-implant crowns using two different abutment systems and to measure soft tissue change during the 1 year after single-implant treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen patients were provided with single-implant restorations in the central incisor area. Nine patients in each group were treated with single-implant crowns supported by either CeraOne abutments (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) or customized Procera ceramic abutments (Nobel Biocare AB). Study casts were made before abutment connection, at crown placement, and after 1 year. After the casts were scanned, they were analyzed with a computer, using the model before abutment as a reference. In the area of the single implant, sagittal projections provided images of the models that allowed measurements between the contours at the different situations. Radiography and photography for measuring papillary volume were also performed. RESULTS: All patients exhibited increased "buccal volume" after abutment connection and crown placement (p < .01). A trend to greater increase was observed for the Procera group. Both groups also showed a reduction of buccal tissue 1 year later (p < .05-.01), leaving on average more volume in the Procera group. The papillae recovered spontaneously, and no relationship was observed between the presence of papilla and underlying bone support (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The buccal tissue increased significantly after placement of the abutment cylinder and the implant crown. This increase of buccal contour was reduced after 1 year. Furthermore, no relationship was established between the presence of papillae and the distance between the contact point and the underlying bone crest.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".