Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of the 5‐mm Diameter Regular‐Platform Brånemark Fixture:2‐ to 5‐Year Follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to report the clinical results obtained with 5-mm diameter regular-platform Brånemark implants after 2 to 5 years of follow-up. A secondary aim was to compare the clinical outcome to that of adjacently placed standard 3.75-mm fixtures in the same patients under the same operative condition and in the same prosthetic construction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients, with a mean age of 54 years, received a total of 97.5-mm diameter regular-platform fixtures. The majority of the implants were placed at molar sites. In 41 of the patients, 53.5-mm diameter implants were placed adjacent to 62 standard 3.75-mm diameter fixtures in the same prosthetic reconstruction. All implants were submerged for an average period of 4 to 6 months. Abutment connection was done according to standard protocol. The prosthetic treatment consisted of freestanding fixed bridges. RESULTS: The cumulative survival rate of the 5-mm diameter implants loaded for a period of 2 to 5 years was 96.9%. Only three implants failed. They were placed in type 4 bone in the posterior maxilla. Bone loss over the first year was 0.70 mm and over a 3-year period 0.81 mm. Implants placed in type 4 bone showed significantly higher bone loss. No difference in the resorption rate could be found between the maxillary and the mandibular implants or between the various implant lengths. There was no significant difference between the bone loss around the 5-mm diameter fixtures and the adjacent 3.75-mm diameter standard fixtures. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated a high predictability of 5-mm diameter regular-platform implants when placed in the posterior maxilla and 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".