Implants (3.3 mm Diameter) for the Rehabilitation of Edentulous Posterior Regions: A Retrospective Clinical Study with Up to 11 Years of Follow‐Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence for the use of narrow-diameter implants for rehabilitation of the posterior regions of the jaws using different surgical techniques. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to report the clinical results of implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitations in the posterior regions of both jaws, using narrow-diameter implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 147 patients (115 males and 32 females), with an age range of 26 to 77 years (mean = 47.5 years), with a total of 247 implants inserted and followed between 1 and 11 years, with a median follow-up time of 5 years. The patients were in need of fixed prosthetic implant-supported rehabilitations in the posterior region of the jaw, presenting a reduced interradicular bone or a thin alveolar crest. The implant survival estimate was computed using the Kaplan-Meier product limit estimator. RESULTS: The survival rate for narrow diameter implants was 95.1% at 11 years (Kaplan-Meier), with a distribution of 91.4% at 11 years, 95.9% at 10 years, and 95.5% at 9 years for the two-stage, one-stage, and immediate function techniques, respectively. The mean marginal bone resorption recorded at 1, 5, and 10 years were 1.16, 1.53, and 1.74 mm, respectively. Backward conditional logistic regression identified "type of implant" as a strong protective factor against implant failure (MkIII and NobelSpeedy implants compared to the MkII implant; OR = 0.14), and "type of rehabilitation" as a strong risk factor for implant failure (partial rehabilitations compared to single teeth rehabilitations; OR = 4.75). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that within the limitations of this study, the use of narrow-diameter implants for the prosthetic rehabilitation of posterior regions of the jaws is viable, with good outcomes in the long-term, irrespective of the surgical technique implemented.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".