MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of two early loading protocols in full arch reconstructions in the edentulous maxilla using the Cresco prosthetic system: a three-arm parallel group randomized-controlled trial

2011· article· en· W2147081283 on OpenAlexaff
Asbjørn Jokstad, Stefan Ellner, Anne Margrete Gussgard

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Oral Implants Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMaxillaDentistryImplantProsthesisRandomized controlled trialDental prosthesisSignificant differenceOrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Appraise the feasibility of interchanging conventional components of a fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) with those of Cresco in two different early loading protocols. Material and methods: In five centers patients with an edentulous, fully healed maxilla were recruited to partake in a three-arm blinded randomized-controlled trial (RCT). Each patient received 5/6 implants using a single-stage surgery approach to support a 10/12-unit FDP. The implants used were SLA solid screw two-part implants. In test groups 1 and 2 components from Cresco were used and the implants loaded 10 days or 6–8 weeks post-implant placement. Group 3 received their FDP fabricated with conventional components 6–8 weeks post-implant placement. Patients were followed up 3 years. Results: Of 36 patients, 30 remained after 3 years. The adjusted means and ranges of changes in crestal bone levels were −0.65, −0.5 and −0.4 mm in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The change from baseline was statistically significant in all treatment groups. Adjusting for the difference in implant depth, there was an expected additional change in bone level of −0.29 mm by each 1 mm the implant was placed deeper. There was no significant difference between the 6-8 weeks post-implant placement loading Cresco group vs. the control group or between the two Cresco groups. Conclusions: The vertical placement has more effect on bone loss than the fabrication technique used for the suprastructure and whether the implants were loaded after 10 days vs. 6–8 weeks. To cite this article:Jokstad A, Ellner S, Gussgard A. Comparison of two early loading protocols in full arch reconstructions in the edentulous maxilla using the Cresco prosthetic system: a three-arm parallel group randomized-controlled trial.Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 22, 2011; 455–463.doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02156.x

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.460
GPT teacher head0.559
Teacher spread0.099 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Oral Implants ResearchSame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207