MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Minimally Invasive Flapless Implant Surgery: A Prospective Multicenter Study

2005· article· en· W2138524108 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
William Becker, Moshe Goldstein, Burton E. Becker, Lars Sennerby

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImplantDentistryRadiographySoft tissueOrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Placement of implants with a minimally invasive flapless approach has the potential to minimize crestal bone loss, soft tissue inflammation, and probing depth adjacent to implants and to minimize surgical time. PURPOSE: The aim of this multicenter study was to evaluate implant placement using a minimally invasive one-stage flapless technique up to 2 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven patients ranging in age from 24 to 86 years were recruited from three clinical centers (Tucson, AZ, USA; Tel Aviv, Israel; Göteborg, Sweden). Seventy-nine implants were placed. A small, sharp-tipped guiding drill was used to create a precise, minimally invasive initial penetration through the mucosa and into bone (Nobel Biocare, Yorba, Linda, CA, USA). Implants were placed according to the manufacturer's instructions, with minimal countersinking. The parameters evaluated were total surgical time, implant survival, bone quality and quantity, implant position by tooth type, depth from mucosal margin to bone crest, implant length, probing depth, inflammation, and crestal bone changes. At 2 years, for 79 implants placed in 57 patients, the cumulative success rate using a minimally invasive flapless method was 98.7%, indicating the loss of 1 implant. Changes in crestal bone for 77 baseline and follow-up measurements were insignificant (radiograph 1: mean 0.7 mm, SD 0.5 mm, range 2.8 mm, minimum 0.2 mm, maximum 3.0 mm; radiograph 2: mean 0.8 mm, SD 0.5 mm, range 3.4 mm, minimum 0.12 mm, maximum 3.5 mm). Using descriptive statistics for 78 patients (one implant lost), mean changes for probing depth and inflammation were clinically insignificant. The average time for implant placement was 28 minutes (minimum 10 minutes, maximum 60 minutes, SD 13.1 minutes). Average depth from mucosal margin to bone was 3.3 mm ( SD 0.7 mm, minimum 2 mm, maximum 5 mm, range 3 mm). Thirty-two implants were placed in maxillae and 47 in mandibles. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate that following diagnostic treatment planning criteria, flapless surgery using a minimally invasive technique is a predictable procedure. The benefits of this procedure are lessened surgical time; minimal changes in crestal bone levels, probing depth, and inflammation; perceived minimized bleeding; and lessened postoperative discomfort.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations217
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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