A 1‐Year Clinical and Radiographic Study on Hydrophilic Dental Implants Placed with and without Bone Augmentation Procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the present 1-year clinical and radiographic study was to evaluate a hydrophilic dental implant when used in everyday cases in one clinic. The purpose was also to compare augmented with nonaugmented sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study group consisted of 50 consecutive patients treated with 159 dental implants (Proactive, Neoss Ltd, Harrogate, UK) in both mandibles and maxillae. Ninety-two implants were placed with adjunct bone augmentation procedures, whereas 40 implants were placed in augmented maxillary sinus sites. A two-stage procedure was used for 84 implants and a one-stage procedure for 47 implants. Twenty-eight implants were immediately loaded. Implant stability was measured with resonance frequency analysis (RFA) at placement and at prosthesis delivery. The patients were scheduled for checkups after 6 and 12 months in function with clinical and radiographic examinations. Marginal bone level measurements were performed in baseline and follow-up intraoral radiographs. RESULTS: Two implant failures in two patients were experienced after 1 year of loading, giving a survival rate of 98.7%. One implant in nonaugmented sites and one implant in conjunction with an augmentation procedure (sinus lift), giving a survival rate of 98.5% and 98.9% for healed and augmented sites, respectively (NS). RFA measurements showed 70.2 ± 9.5 ISQ at placement and 76.5 ± 5.9 ISQ (p ≤ 0.001) after a mean healing time of 5.6 ± 1.6 months. The marginal bone loss amounted to 0.7 ± 0.7 mm after 1 year of loading. Frequency distribution showed bone gain or less than 1 mm bone loss for the majority of implants (69.3%), whereas 25.7% showed 1.1 to 2 mm, 5.0% more than 2 mm and no implants more than 3 mm of bone loss. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Neoss Proactive implants for prosthetic rehabilitation of consecutive patients resulted in predictable clinical and radiographic outcomes after 1 year of loading with no differences between augmented and nonaugmented sites.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".