Initial Torque Stability of a New Bone Condensing Dental Implant. A Cohort Study of 140 Consecutively Placed Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper was to determine the torque resistance of this new implant during placement in different types of bone, immediate placement into sockets, and in grafted bone. The torque at time of placement serves as an indication of initial stability, which is accepted as an important factor for implant osseointegration and immediate loading. Within a 13-month period, 140 NobelActive implants in 84 consecutive patients were placed into types I-IV bone in fresh sockets, and into grafted bone (both in maxillary sinuses and on the facial alveolar surfaces where bone had been lost). The final torque was measured with a manual torque control wrench as manufactured by Nobel Biocare for clinical use with this type of implant. One hundred forty implants with 3.5 to 5 mm diameters and 10 to 15 mm lengths were placed in different types of bone, either as delayed or immediate implants into fresh extraction sockets. These implants demonstrated a mean torque stability value of 50.8 Ncm. The average insertion torque for delayed implants was 49.7 Ncm. For immediate implants the average torque was 52.6 Ncm. Placement into soft bone was also favorable at an average of 47.9 Ncm. Typical straight walled and tapered implants generally exhibit 10 to 35 Ncm insertion torques. The NobelActive implant consistently reaches higher torque levels. This may indicate they are more favorably suited to early provisionalization and loading. Soft bone (type IV) did not seem to decrease significantly the torque of insertion of these implants. Further longer term studies are needed to investigate whether this indeed makes these implants more suited for early provisionalization and loading than traditional root form. Long term studies are also needed to investigate maintenance of bone levels surrounding these 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".