Bone Level Changes Around Axial and Tilted Implants in Full‐Arch Fixed Immediate Restorations. Interim Results of a Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective study was to assess clinical outcomes and peri-implant bone level changes around tilted and axial implants supporting full-arch fixed immediate rehabilitations up to 60 months of loading. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-seven patients (22 women and 25 men) were included in the study. Each patient received a full-arch fixed bridge supported by two axial and two distal tilted implants. Loading was applied within 48 hours of surgery. Patients were scheduled for follow-up at 6, 12, 18, 24 months, and annually up to 5 years. At each follow-up, plaque level and bleeding scores were assessed and radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level change was performed. Periapical radiographs were taken using a paralleling technique, and subsequently scanned at 600 dpi. An image analysis software was used to assess bone level. RESULTS: A total of 33 mandibles and 16 maxillae were rehabilitated (two patients received a fixed prosthesis in both arches). One hundred ninety-six Nobel Biocare implants of 4 mm diameter were placed. The mean follow-up duration was 52.8 months (range 30-66 months) in the mandible, and 33.8 months (range 22-40 months) in the maxilla. All subjects attended the scheduled follow-up visits. No implant was lost. No significant difference in marginal bone loss was found between axial and tilted implants in both jaws, at each follow-up. No significant difference in bone loss was found between mandible and maxilla, for both axial and tilted implants at each comparable time frame, although slightly higher mean values were always found for the mandible. CONCLUSION: The use of tilted implants in the immediate rehabilitation of fully edentulous jaws is safe and is not associated to a higher marginal bone loss as compared to axially placed implants.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".