Multicenter Retrospective Study of ITI Implant‐Supported Posterior Partial Prosthesis in Jordan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this multicenter study was to evaluate success and restorative problems of ITI (ITI Dental Implant System, Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) implant-supported posterior partial prostheses in Jordan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One-hundred forty-one ITI implants were placed in the posterior region of the mandible or the maxilla in 66 patients at multiple clinical practices in Jordan. The age of the patients ranged from 17 to 85 years. The implants were retrospectively analyzed from the first date of placement in September 1999 until May 2006. Eighty-three implants (58.87%) were placed in the mandible, and 58 (41.13%) in the maxilla. The implants were loaded with either cement-retained single- or multiple-tooth replacements. RESULTS: Three maxillary implants of two male patients have been lost (2.13% of the total and 5.12% of the maxillary implants). Failed implants were of wide-neck type with 6-mm lengths. Moreover, in another two male patients, two single implants at the maxillary premolar region exhibited significant bone loss from the buccal side of the implant surface (2-mm bone resorption). Those two implants are still functioning and were included in calculating the survival rate but not the success rate. Therefore, the cumulative survival rate for both arches and genders was 97.87% and that for male patients in the maxillary region was 94.88%. The cumulative success rate for both arches and genders was 96.45% and that for the maxillary region was 86.21%. The corresponding rates concerning implants in female patients and the posterior mandible of both genders were 100% for both survival and success rates. Only one crown (mandibular) and another two abutment bridge (maxillary) were decemented in different patients (2.13%). CONCLUSIONS: The survival and success rates of implants placed in male patients and in the maxilla were lower than that of implants placed in female patients and in the mandible. Cement-retained restorations showed minimal complications.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".