Medium‐ and Long‐Term Complications in Full‐Arch Rehabilitations Supported by Upright and Tilted Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective investigation was to present the incidence of biological and technical complications in patients treated with implant-supported, immediately loaded full-arch restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical data of all patients treated with full-arch, immediately loaded rehabilitations supported by a combination of upright and tilted implants were screened. Data on both technical and biological complications (such as peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis) and their onset and frequency of occurrence were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: The clinical records of 86 patients (95 prosthetic rehabilitations) were included in this study. There were 61 mandibular rehabilitations and 34 maxillary ones, all of them immediately loaded within 8 to 48 hours of the surgical intervention. The follow-up time varied from 16.3 to 112 months of function (mean 65.36 months). The most common biological complications were hygiene-related (n = 81; 30.2% of patients displayed peri-implant mucositis and 10.4% peri-implantitis). Among all prosthetic complications, the detachment of an element of the definitive prosthesis was the most frequent event (n = 20; 23.2% of patients). The total number of prosthetic complications was 42. Most complications were reversible and did not affect the overall implant/prosthesis survival rate. CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence in well-maintained patients of technical and biological complications in full-arch rehabilitations supported by a combination of tilted and upright implants in the medium to long term is lower than previously reported by the pertinent literature. Further studies are needed to confirm this result.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".