Temporary Implant‐Supported Prosthesis for Immediate Loading According to a Chair‐Side Concept: Technical Note and Results from 37 Consecutive Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During the last years, focus has been paid to implant treatment using immediate function protocols, and different approaches to provide patients with temporary constructions have been presented. Most of these techniques involve dental technicians producing the temporary construction, for example, rebuilding existing dentures, acrylic bridges, etc. PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective clinical study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of a chair-side technique of a cost-effective temporary prosthesis. Fixture survival rate and risk of temporary bridge failure were analyzed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven partially or totally edentate patients (18 female and 19 male; mean age: 66.7 years) treated with chair-side manufactured temporary restorations (QuickBridge, BIOMET 3i, Palm Beach, Fl, USA) for immediate loading have been evaluated. The prostheses extended from two unit bridges supported by two implants to full-arch construction supported by six implants. The temporary prostheses were monitored from the day of surgery and delivery to the time of replacement with a permanent prosthetic construction 3 to 6 months later. RESULTS: No implants were lost during the observation time. One (3%) temporary prosthesis fractured and additional two (6%) loosened during the follow-up time. CONCLUSIONS: The study indicated that the tested chair-side concept for manufacturing of temporary prosthesis for immediate loading of dental implants is a viable approach.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".