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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".