MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Minimally Invasive Flapless Implant Surgery: A Prospective Multicenter Study

2005· article· en· W2138524108 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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