MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Functional Restoration of Implants on the Day of Surgical Placement in the Fully Edentulous Mandible: A Case Series

2005· article· en· W2112750509 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alexandre‐Amir Aalam, Hessam Nowzari, Alina Krivitsky

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDentistryEdentulismRehabilitationMandible (arthropod mouthpart)ImplantDental prosthesisOrthodonticsSurgeryOral healthPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to report the clinical experience and outcome of a study of the functional rehabilitation of 16 completely edentulous mandibles with immediately loaded cross-arch screw-retained hybrid prostheses at the University of Southern California. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After signing informed consent forms 16 patients (9 male, 7 female) aged 47 to 84 years (mean age, 62.6+/-11.6 years) received 90 Brånemark System Mk III dental implants (Nobel Biocare USA, Yorba Linda, CA, USA). Stability and radiographs of the dental implants were evaluated at the time of surgery, at 3 months, at 1 year, and at 3 years post loading. RESULTS: Three implants failed to meet the criteria of success, bringing the cumulative success rate to 96.6%, with a 100% prosthetic success rate at 3 years. Thirty-nine (43.3%) of the dental implants placed were 15 mm in length. Seventy-seven (85.5%) of the dental implants were placed in high-density bone. At 3 years post loading, the average bone loss was -1.2+/-0.1 mm. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, restoration of implants by unreinforced hybrid prostheses at the time of placement provided satisfactory results. The outcome was stable at 3 years post restoration. Mandibular rehabilitation by functional loading of the implants on the day of the insertion requires the comprehension and proper application of surgical and restorative principles.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations50
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related ResearchSame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207