10‐Year Survival and Success Rates of 511 Titanium Implants with a Sandblasted and Acid‐Etched Surface: A Retrospective Study in 303 Partially Edentulous Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This retrospective study assessed the 10-year outcomes of titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) surface in a large cohort of partially edentulous patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of patients treated with SLA implants between May 1997 and January 2001 were screened. Eligible patients were contacted and invited to undergo a clinical and radiologic examination. Each implant was classified according to strict success criteria. RESULTS: Three hundred three patients with 511 SLA implants were available for the examination. The mean age of the patients at implant surgery was 48 years. Over the 10-year period, no implant fracture was noted, whereas six implants (1.2%) were lost. Two implants (0.4%) showed signs of suppuration at the 10-year examination, whereas seven implants had a history of peri-implantitis (1.4%) during the 10-year period, but presented with healthy peri-implant soft tissues at examination. The remaining 496 implants fulfilled the success criteria. The mean Plaque Index was 0.65 (±0.64), the mean Sulcus Bleeding Index 1.32 (±0.57), the mean Probing Depth 3.27 mm (±1.06), and the mean distance from the implant shoulder to the mucosal margin value -0.42 mm (±1.27). The radiologic mean distance from the implant shoulder to the first bone-to-implant contact was 3.32 mm (±0.73). CONCLUSION: The present retrospective analysis resulted in a 10-year implant survival rate of 98.8% and a success rate of 97.0%. In addition, the prevalence of peri-implantitis in this large cohort of orally healthy patients was low with 1.8% during the 10-year period.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".