Immediate Occlusal versus Non‐Occlusal Loading of Implants: A Randomized Clinical Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immediate occlusal and non-occlusal loading protocols have been discussed and, despite varying success rates, are considered viable in selected cases. Preoperative implant planning and intraoperative transfer are essential to the success of implant-supported reconstructions in partially or completely edentulous jaws. PURPOSE: This study was performed to compare clinical outcomes of immediate occlusal versus non-occlusal loading of posterior implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 19 patients with 52 screw-type implants replacing mandibular molars or premolars, nine patients with 21 implants were randomized to a study group that received immediate restorations with occlusal loading, whereas 10 patients with 31 implants were randomized to a control group that received provisional restorations without occlusal loading. Occlusal loading was defined as full loading in maximum intercuspidation. Single-tooth or splinted multiunit restorations were incorporated by screw retention or cementation. Marginal bone defects (MBD), implant survival, and implant success were evaluated 12 months after insertion. RESULTS: Both groups revealed similar MBD levels consistent with previous reports. No implants were lost (overall survival: 100%) or found to fail (overall success: 100%). No significant intergroup differences were noted for any of the evaluated parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate restorations in partially edentulous mandibles demonstrated successful clinical and radiographic 12-month results. Larger long-term prospective studies are needed to confirm the final evidence and predictability of immediate functional loading as a standard treatment concept for partially edentulous jaws.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".