Success and Failure Rates of 9 mm or Shorter Implants in the Replacement of Missing Maxillary Molars When Restored with Individual Crowns: Preliminary Results 0 to 84 Months in Function. A Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ability to utilize shorter implants in the reconstruction of the posterior maxilla would, theoretically, simplify therapy by lessening the need for augmentation surgery. The purpose of this retrospective study was to assess the success and failure rates of < or = 9 mm or shorter implants in the maxillary posterior regions restored with individual crowns. METHODS: A total of 979 implants were placed in maxillary molar positions and restored with individual crowns. The implants were followed in function for up to 84 months. The results are discussed in terms of clinical applicability and indications for use. RESULTS: The cumulative success rates in function were 94.5% for implants in the maxillary first molar positions and 98.7% for implants in the maxillary second molar positions, yielding an overall cumulative success rate of 95.1%, in function for up to 84 months. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that non-countersunk implants of 7 to 9 mm in length may be successfully restored with single crowns in the maxillary molar region.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".