MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rehabilitation of Edentulous Mandibles by Means of Five TiUnite™ Implants After One‐Stage Surgery: A 1‐Year Retrospective Study of 90 Patients

2007· article· en· W2138187539 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bertil Friberg, Torsten Jemt

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDentistryImplantProsthesisDental prosthesisSurvival rateRetrospective cohort studyOrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recently, the present team reported the 1-year data of one-stage surgery and mainly early loading performed in edentulous mandibles using 750 turned Brånemark System implants in 152 patients. PURPOSE: The aim of the present investigation was to retrospectively evaluate the 1-year results of the same treatment technique, using Brånemark System implants with an oxidized surface (TiUnite, Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden). The outcome was compared with that of the former study (control) on turned implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study involved 90 individuals with 450 TiUnite implants of mainly the Brånemark System Mark III design, placed in edentulous mandibles and using one-stage surgery. The prosthetic procedure was commenced as a mean 8 days after the surgical intervention. Intraoral radiographs were obtained at prosthesis insertion and at the 1-year annual checkup. Failure rates of test and control groups were compared by means of the chi-square test. RESULTS: No implants were found to be mobile up to and including the first annual checkup, resulting in an implant cumulative survival rate (CSR) of 100%. The corresponding CSR for the control group was 97.5%, and this difference in implant survival was statistically significant when analyzed with the chi-square test (p < .001). A statistically significant difference was also demonstrated (p < .01) when conducting the same statistical analysis on the patient level. The mean marginal bone resorption during the first year of function was 0.49 mm (SD 0.56), and the corresponding figures for the control study were 0.39 mm (SD 0.46). The central TiUnite implant, that is, the one placed in or in close relation to the symphyseal region showed significantly more bone loss (p < .05) than the corresponding central turned implant of the control study. Distally positioned test implants demonstrated less marginal bone loss than the corresponding central one. CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of 450 TiUnite implants placed in 90 patients with edentulous mandibles, of which 380 implants in 76 patients were followed for 1 year, showed an implant CSR of 100%. The figure was significantly different from the control study result of 97.5% on turned surface implants. The levels of marginal bone were close to identical for test and control implants at the 1-year checkup.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.365 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related ResearchSame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207