Immediate Postextractive Dental Implant Placement with Immediate Loading on Four Implants for Mandibular‐Full‐Arch Rehabilitation: A Retrospective Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To date, only few studies have reported on the clinical outcomes of immediate postextraction implant placement and immediate loading. PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective study was to report the results of immediately loading four implants placed in fresh extraction sockets in the mandible after a follow-up of 24 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2001 and January 2009, 50 patients (28 women and 22 men, average age 54 years), had 347 teeth extracted and a total of 200 dental implants placed in the mandible. The patients received a provisional fixed bridge the same day and a permanent one 3 months later. Clinical checkups were performed after 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. Marginal bone measurements were made in intraoral radiographs taken 1 day after surgery and after 1 year. A questionnaire was used to evaluate self-perceived factors related to comfort, aesthetics, and function. RESULTS: All bridges were stable and no implant failures were recorded during the follow-up, giving a survival rate of 100%, at 2 years. The marginal bone loss amounted to 1.33 ± 0.36 mm after 1 year and 1.48 ± 0.39 mm after 2 years. Ten patients showed prosthetic complications with the provisional bridge, but all the definitive prostheses remained stable throughout the study period without any complications. The patients reported satisfaction with the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The present retrospective study showed that immediate loading of four implants immediately placed in extraction sockets is a valid treatment modality for the totally edentulous mandible.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".