Flapless Implant Surgery Using an Image‐Guided System. A 1‐ to 4‐Year Retrospective Multicenter Comparative Clinical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective multicenter clinical study was to compare the survival rate of dental implants placed with two different surgical procedures: (1) a flapless surgical procedure using an image-guided system (IGS flapless protocol) and (2) the conventional technique (open flap without IGS) with a computed tomography scan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2001 and 2004, 552 implants were placed in 169 patients by six practitioners who used both protocols to restore completely and partially edentulous arches: 271 of them were placed with the IGS flapless protocol (test group) and 281 with the conventional procedure (control group). Each implant was categorized as "survival" or "failure" after 1 to 4 years of follow-up after prosthesis implantation. A preoperative classification was used to evaluate the anatomic features of each case. There was initially no possible comparison between these two groups because of the indication bias relative to the retrospective clinical study data characteristics. After a classic logistic regression analysis, propensity scores were used to reduce this bias: prognosis variables were included in a regression logistic model to define the probability for each implant to be treated with the IGS flapless protocol. Implants showing the same probability were categorized into three classes. The implants were then compared with each other within the same class. RESULTS: After the follow-up period, the cumulative survival rate was 98.57% in the control group and 96.30% in the test group. Whatever the statistical method used, no statistical differences between the two protocols were shown. Transmucosal implant placement showed a survival rate of 97%. Even though the initial conditions were less favorable, the survival rate in the test group was comparable with the standard protocol group. CONCLUSION: Passing an implant through the gum does not interfere with osseointegration. The IGS flapless procedure makes it possible to use the flapless procedure, even though anatomic conditions were initially unfavorable.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".