Brånemark System® Wide Platform Implants for Single Molar Replacement: Clinical Evaluation of Prospective and Retrospective Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of oral implants for single tooth replacement has become a predictable treatment modality. As single tooth loss is most common in posterior areas of the jaws, the use of the protocol is of specific interest in those regions. New implant designs aimed at this purpose have also been introduced. PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to present the outcomes for wide diameter implant treatment when being used in posterior areas of the jaws. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This paper presents the 3-year results of a prospective multicenter study (three clinics; n = 38 implants) and the 1-year results from a retrospective multicenter study (two clinics; n = 20 implants) on wide diameter implants for single molar replacement. Based on the hypothesis that dense bone in posterior mandibles would benefit from careful surgery and longer remodeling time, the influences of surgical technique and healing time on implant success and bone resorption were particularly addressed. RESULTS: The outcome demonstrated a good predictability for Brånemark System Wide Platform implants, at least short term, when used as single molar support (prospective group cumulative success rate [CSR] = 92% after 3 years; retrospective group CSR = 95% after 1 year). The increased mechanical strength of the wide platform implant/abutment complex also turned out to be important for mechanical stability. CONCLUSIONS: The study indicated that it was important to carefully perform surgery in posterior mandibles in order to preserve and optimally use the existing dense bone. It was suggested that from bone healing and remodeling aspects, posterior mandibles may be more demanding to handle than corresponding areas of maxillae.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".