Oxidized Titanium Implants in Reconstructive Jaw Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rehabilitation with implant-supported bridges in patients with insufficient bone volumes may require bone reconstructive procedures in conjunction with or prior to implant placement. Clinical follow-up studies using turned titanium and bone grafts have demonstrated higher failure rates than when used in nongrafted patients. Improved bone integration has been demonstrated for oxidized titanium implants; however, their clinical performance in bone reconstruction situations is not known. PURPOSE: This study was performed to analyze the survival and stability of oxidized titanium implants placed in patients subjected to reconstructive jaw surgery at one clinic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred oxidized titanium implants (Mk III, TiUnite, Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) were placed in 47 patients in conjunction with or secondary to six different reconstructive procedures owing to insufficient bone volume. In all six groups, implant stability was assessed by resonance frequency analysis and manually checked for rotation stability at implant insertion, at the time of abutment connection, and after a minimum of 12 months of loading of the prosthetic construction. Periapical radiographs were taken after a minimum of 12 months of loading (mean 21 months) for evaluation of the marginal bone levels. The mean clinical follow-up period was 30 months. RESULTS: Of the 200 implants, 199 were considered osseointegrated at the time of abutment surgery. At the 12-month postloading follow-up, another two implants were considered not stable. Three implants (1.5%) were ranked as unsuccessful. CONCLUSION: Clinical experience with 200 consecutive oxidized implants in various reconstruction situations shows a successful outcome, with only three failures (1.5%) during a mean follow-up period of 30 months.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".