Tilted Implants for the Rehabilitation of Edentulous Jaws: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this review was to evaluate the survival rate of upright and tilted implants supporting fixed prosthetic reconstructions for the immediate rehabilitation of partially and fully edentulous jaws, after at least 1 year of function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search of databases plus a hand search on the most relevant journals up to December 2009 was performed. The articles were selected using specific inclusion criteria, independent of the study design. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 347 articles. A first screening based on the title and abstract identified 25 eligible studies. After full-text review of these studies, 10 articles were selected for analysis. Seven were prospective single-cohort studies and three had a retrospective design. A total of 462 patients have been rehabilitated with 470 immediately loaded prostheses (257 in the maxilla, 213 in the mandible), supported by a total of 1,992 implants (1,026 upright and 966 tilted). Twenty-five implants (1.25%) failed in 20 patients within the first year. All failures except one occurred in the maxilla. No significant difference in failure rate was found between tilted and upright implants, nor between maxillary and mandibular implants. No prosthesis failure was reported. Limited peri-implant bone loss was reported with no difference between upright and tilted implants. Full patients' satisfaction for function, phonetics, and esthetics was reported in three studies, based on questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: The use of tilted implants to support immediately loaded fixed prostheses for the rehabilitation of edentulous jaws can be considered a predictable technique, with an excellent prognosis in the short-medium term. However, randomized long-term trials are needed to determine the efficacy of this surgical approach.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".