Clinical Reliability of <scp>CAD</scp>/<scp>CAM</scp> Cross‐Arch Zirconia Bridges on Immediately Loaded Implants Placed with Computer‐Assisted/Template‐Guided Surgery: A Retrospective Study with a Follow‐Up between 3 and 5 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the implant and prosthetic survival and success rates of zirconia-based, implant-supported, screw-retained, cross-arch restorations up to 5 years after placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two consecutive edentulous patients (11 males and females, each; mean age 68.3 years) received 26 CAD/CAM cross-arch zirconia implant bridges (NobelProcera™ Implant Bridge Zirconia; Nobel Biocare AG, Zurich, Switzerland) supported by 4 to 10 implants each. All patients were followed for at least 3 years (range 36-60 months, mean 42.3 months). Clinical assessments were scheduled every 4 months during hygiene maintenance. Outcomes were implant and prosthetic survival rates, prosthetic success rate, any observed clinical complications, patient satisfaction, and soft tissue parameters. Fisher's exact test was used to assess associations between categorical variables. RESULTS: No dropouts occurred. The overall implant and prostheses survival rate up to 5 years was 100%. Three out of 26 restorations (five out of three hundred forty eight dental units) showed an adhesive chip-off fracture of the veneering ceramic, scoring a cumulative prosthetic success rate of 88.5% at the prosthetic level and 98.6% at the unit level. All 22 patients were functionally and aesthetically highly satisfied with their restorations. Successful soft tissue parameters were found around all implants. CONCLUSIONS: Industrially manufactured, zirconia-based, implant-supported, screw-retained, cross-arch restorations are a viable alternative to conventionally manufactured porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations for rehabilitating the edentulous patient.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".