One‐Year Results of a Prospective Multicenter Study on Brånemark System® Implants with a TiUnite™ Surface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A moderately rough surface implant (TiUnite, Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) was introduced in 2000. Laboratory studies and some clinical studies have demonstrated excellent bone response in the early healing phase. PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective multicenter study was to follow a large number of consecutively treated patients using Brånemark System implants with the TiUnite surface. The current report constitutes the 1-year data of a planned 3-year study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Originally, the study comprised 43 surgeons from 22 centers in Sweden, Norway, and Finland. Five centers were excluded from the study because of poor compliance. Thus, 187 patients treated with 478 TiUnite implants were followed during 1 year of function. The majority of implants were inserted in maxillae (357 implants), and 78 of the implant sites were assigned the quality 4 figure. Radiographic evaluations were performed. RESULTS: Five implants were lost up to and including the 1-year follow-up, revealing implant cumulative survival rates of 98.6% and 100% for maxillae and mandibles, respectively. Three implants failed in quality 4 bone (3.8%). The mean marginal bone resorption at the end of the study period was 1.4 mm. The number of withdrawals of patients during the first year was high (19.3%). CONCLUSION: The present investigation showed a high implant cumulative survival rate of 98.9%. Values of marginal bone resorption were within normal ranges. No adverse effects of the TiUnite surface were reported, and complications during the study period were few and similar to those reported for the turned implant surface. However, the high number of excluded patients and the relatively high number of withdrawals must be observed and considered when interpreting data.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".