Brånemark Implants and Osteoporosis: A Clinical Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral implant treatment on patients with poor jaw-bone texture has shown increased failure rates in series of studies. PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to retrospectively follow patients with osteoporosis of the axial or appendicular skeleton, including the jaw bone, being subjected to oral implant treatment. The outcome of inserted implants, when using an adapted bone site preparation technique and extended healing periods, was evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on data obtained from preoperative radiographs, patient medical history, and resistance of the jaw bone perceived during drilling, 14 of 16 patients were referred to the Osteoporosis Laboratory, Sahlgren University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden, for bone density measurements. Two patients already had an established diagnosis of osteoporosis. Fourteen jaws in 13 patients (11 females, 2 males; mean age: 68 yr) were subsequently subjected to oral implant treatment with a total of 70 implants (Brånemark System) of various designs. The mean follow-up period was 3 years and 4 months (range: 6 mo-11 yr). RESULTS: Osteoporosis of either the spine, the hip, or both regions was diagnosed in 14 patients, and osteopenia was diagnosed in 2 patients. Two implants failed, and the overall implant survival rate at the end of the study period was 97.0% for maxillae and 97.3% for mandibles. The marginal bone resorption at the 1-year follow-up concurs with the outcome of other studies, irrespective of the preoperative bone texture present. CONCLUSION: The outcome of the present study showed that implant placement in patients in whom the average bone density showed osteoporosis in both lumbar spine and hip as well as poor local bone texture may be successful over a period of many years.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".