MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Rehabilitation of Edentulous Mandibles by Means of Four TiUnite™ Implants after One‐Stage Surgery: A 1‐Year Retrospective Study of 75 Patients

2010· article· en· W2066713513 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bertil Friberg, Torsten Jemt

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDentistryImplantRetrospective cohort studyProsthesisDental prosthesisRadiographySurvival rateOrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recently, the present team reported the 1-year data of a one-stage surgery and mainly early loading with five supporting implants in completely edentulous mandibles, indicating more bone loss at the central implant, placed in the midline of the jaw. PURPOSE: The aim of the present retrospective investigation was to evaluate the 1-year results of the same treatment technique with four instead of five supporting implants in completely edentulous mandibles. The outcome was compared with that of a former study (control) on five implants per patient during first year of function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study comprised 75 patients with a total of 300 TiUnite implants (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) of mainly the Brånemark System >or= Mark III design. The prosthetic procedure started and was completed on an average of 9.1 days (standard deviation [SD] 4.47) and 33.2 days (SD 16.09) after the surgical intervention, respectively. Intraoral radiographs were obtained at prosthesis insertion and at the 1-year follow-up visit. Failure rates of test and control groups were compared by means of the chi-squared test. RESULTS: All four implants in one patient were found to be mobile at the first annual check-up, resulting in an implant cumulative survival rate (CSR) of 98.5%. The corresponding CSR for the control group was 100% (p > 0.05). The mean marginal bone resorption during the first year of function was 0.3 mm (SD 0.74) as compared with 0.5 (SD 0.56) mm for the control group (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of 300 TiUnite implants placed in 75 patients with edentulous mandibles, of which 268 implants in 67 patients were followed for 1 year, showed an implant CSR of 98.5%. The implant survival was not significantly different from that of the control study result of 100%, in which five instead of four supporting implants were used. The levels of marginal bone were close to identical for the corresponding test and control implants at the 1-year check-up.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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