Long‐term Follow‐up of Severely Atrophic Edentulous Mandibles Reconstructed with Short Branemark Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral implant treatment (Brånemark System) of edentulous mandibles has been presented in numerous studies. However, with regard to the severely atrophic lower jaw, no long-term follow-up studies with solely short implants are available. PURPOSE: The purpose of the present investigation was to retrospectively follow the long-term treatment outcome of patients with severely resorbed edentulous mandibles being subjected to oral implant placement with short (6-7 mm) Brånemark implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 247 standard (7 mm long, Ø 3.75 mm) and 13 wide (6 mm long, Ø 5 mm) implants were inserted in 49 patients, all of whom exhibited severe resorption of edentate mandibles. Fixed implant-supported prostheses were manufactured for 45 patients, whereas 4 patients received overdentures. The patients were followed for a mean period of 8 years (range, 1-14 yr). RESULTS: Seventeen implants failed during the study period (cumulative implant survival rate 95.5% at 5-yr and 92.3% at 10-yr follow-up). Implant-supported constructions were worn continuously throughout the investigation by all study subjects. Marginal bone loss, measured after 1, 5, and 10 years of function, concurred with studies of Brånemark implants placed in more voluminous mandibles. No major clinical or construction complications occurred in the followed patients. CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of the present study showed that placement of short Brånemark implants without the use of bone grafting procedures for reconstruction of severely atrophic edentulous mandibles is a highly predictable treatment procedure.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".