Osseointegrated Implant for Single‐Tooth Replacement: A Retrospective Multicenter Study on Routine Use in Private Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implant restorations first started with total edentulism. Later, the scientific community gave its approval for restorations in partial edentulism, and only recently some studies confirmed the validity of the treatment for single-tooth replacement. PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate implant survival and prosthesis stability of Brånemark implants (titanium screws) when used routinely for single-tooth replacement in all regions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and fourteen patients received 252 implants for single-tooth replacement over a period of 8 years at five private clinics in Italy. The patients were treated in accordance with the protocol for Brånemark implants, and the data gathered have been analyzed according to established evaluation methods. RESULTS: During the observation period, 10 failures were recorded and 229 restorations were carried out. After the first year of loading, the total cumulative survival rate (CSR) was 96%, which then remained stable over the study time. The most frequent complication was loosening of the abutment screws (n = 22), amounting to 35% of all of the complications. This problem was related mainly to earlier types of abutments, whereas the more recent design, CeraOne abutment, showed a low frequency of screw loosening. CONCLUSIONS: The high survival rate, which is similar to that presented for prospective multicenter studies for single-tooth restorations with Brånemark implants, led to the conclusion that the use of this treatment modality is a reliable treatment for routine use in all oral regions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".