A 5-year prospective study of implant-supported single-tooth replacements.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Because osseointegration has been successful in the management of completely edentulous patients, it is tempting to extrapolate these results and infer the success of single-tooth replacement. Yet there are major clinical differences between edentulous and partially edentulous patients. This prospective study is a follow-up to one started at the University of Toronto in 1986. The purpose of this study was to continue longitudinal assessment of implant-supported single-tooth replacements. METHODS: The original study comprised 42 consecutively treated patients with a total of 49 implants. The patient group consisted of all University of Toronto patients treated with single Br nemark implants whose treatment had been completed more than 5 years previously (i.e., before 1994). No exclusion criteria applied. One implant was not osseointegrated at the time of stage 2 surgery, and 6 patients with reportedly successful osseointegrated implants were not available for recall. For the preparation of this report, 30 of the remaining 42 implants were assessed during recall examinations. Assessment of success was based on published criteria. In addition, soft-tissue appearance, implant immobility, occlusal contacts in centric occlusion and excursions, proximal contacts, tightness of crown and abutment screws, and patients' responses on satisfaction questionnaires were evaluated. RESULTS: The criteria defining success of treatment in implant prosthodontics were met by all 30 of the single-tooth implants, which had been in place for 5 or more years. Each implant was immobile, and each had a mean vertical bone reduction of less than 0.2 mm annually. CONCLUSION: Stable long-term results can be achieved with single Brånemark implant-supported crowns.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".