Nonsubmerged Implants in the Treatment of the Edentulous Upper Jaw: A Prospective Clinical and Radiographic Study of ITI Implants—Results after 1 Year
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A new generation of ITI implants, including a hollow cylinder, a hollow screw, and a solid screw, was described in 1988. Currently, the solid screw is the main alternative. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to gain further clinical documentation of ITI solid-screw implants used in the edentulous upper jaw. This is a report 1 year after loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with edentulous upper jaws (mean age, 57 yr) were supplied with four to eight ITI solid-screw implants in the upper jaw. In total, 167 implants (3.3 and 4.1 mm in diameter) were inserted. The implants were loaded about 7 months postoperatively. All patients were supplied with fixed screw-retained bridges. RESULTS: Twelve implants failed: 10 prior to loading and 2 after. Overall implant survival rate was 92.8%. Three of the five patients with implant loss were smokers. Signs of peri-implantitis were found in seven patients, affecting 12 implants. Mean marginal bone level at the loading of the implants (7 months after insertion) was situated 4.7 mm from the reference point of the implant. There was no significant change between loading and the 1-year examination. However, at several implants, the bone level at baseline was situated far apical of the reference point, indicating a bone loss before loading. CONCLUSIONS: The ITI screw implants, used in the edentulous upper jaw, had a survival rate of 92.8%. Mean bone loss between loading and the 1-year examination was 0.1 mm. Some implants had a bone level indicating a significant bone loss before loading. Peri-implantitis was found at about 7.2% of the implants inserted and at 25% of the failing implants.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".