A Prospective Multicenter Study Using Two Different Surgical Approaches in the Mandible with Turned Brånemark Implants: Conventional Loading Using Fixed Prostheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of a submerged implant system in a nonsubmerged surgical procedure has been reported to have promising results. At the time this study was initiated, no prospective, comparative studies with randomization between submerged and nonsubmerged surgical techniques had been published. PURPOSE: To evaluate the submerged and nonsubmerged surgical techniques when treating mandibular edentulism using a submerged implant system, with regard to implant survival and complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 77 patients were included and treated at nine clinics in Sweden and Norway. In total, 404 Brånemark System implants (standard and MkII implants) were inserted in the edentulous mandible; 198 implants according to the nonsubmerged protocol and 206 implants according to the traditional submerged procedure. The follow-up period was up to 36 months after prosthesis insertion. RESULTS: In the nonsubmerged group, 17 implants out of 198 implants (8.6%) were lost and in the submerged group, 5 out of 206 implants (2.4%) were lost. All implant failures occurred before the delivery of the final prosthesis. No major complications were reported during the implant surgery. However, at the clinical check-up postoperatively and at the abutment connection surgery, 6 patients in the nonsubmerged group complained of pain at the implant sites, whereas there were no complaints of pain in the submerged group. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that a turned Brånemark implant designed for a submerged implant placement procedure can be used in a nonsubmerged procedure and may be as predictable as the conventional submerged approach.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".