Immediate Rehabilitation of the Extremely Atrophic Mandible with Fixed Full‐Prosthesis Supported by Four Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To prospectively assess the outcome of immediate rehabilitation of extremely atrophic mandibles by a full-arch fixed bridge anchored to four implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty patients with edentulous mandibles were included in the study. Each patient received a full-arch fixed bridge supported by two axial and two distal tilted implants. Prosthetic loading was applied within 48 hours of surgery. Patients were scheduled for follow-up every 6 months up to 2 years and annually until 5 years. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level change was performed at 1 year. RESULTS: All patients were followed for a minimum of 1 year (range 20-48 months, mean 30.1 months). No failures were recorded to date. The 1-year implant survival rate and prosthesis success rate were 100%. Marginal bone loss around axial and tilted implants was similar at 12-month evaluation, being, respectively, 0.6 ± 0.3 (standard deviation) mm and 0.7 ± 0.4 mm. High patient's level of satisfaction was recorded for function, phonetics, and aesthetics. CONCLUSION: This technique could be considered a viable treatment option for the rehabilitation of the atrophic mandible.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".