Ten‐Year Retrospective Follow‐Up Study of the TiOblast™ Dental Implant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Long-term results in the clinical outcome of different implant systems, including high patient numbers and a long follow-up time, are rare. This retrospective study evaluated the cumulative survival rate of a self-tapping, cylindrical implant system with a conical implant-abutment connection after 10 years of prosthetic loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 516 TiOblast implants (Astra Tech AB, Mölndal, Sweden) were placed in 108 patients. The patients were treated in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany, between September 1994 and May 2005. The main indications for implantation were the treatment of edentulous mandibles (74%) and partial edentulism (15%). Twenty-three implants were placed postradiation, and a further 64 implants were irradiated after insertion. In 153 implants, a bony augmentation was conducted prior to implantation. RESULTS: The in situ rate was 89.7% after an average implantation time of 108 months. Eighty-three patients with 403 implants were available for investigation. Seventeen patients with 76 implants have died since 1994. Absence of osseointegration (n = 22), peri-implantitis (n = 18), fracture of the implants (n = 9), failing of primary stability (n = 2), and implants next to tumors (n = 2) were the reasons of explantation in 26 patients. Under analysis with different implant success-assessment criteria, the success rate showed results from 76 to 89%. CONCLUSION: With respect to the critical patient selection including a high number of patients with minor and major augmentations, the 10-year clinical use of the studied implant system showed acceptable results.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".