One‐Year Outcomes of Neoss Bimodal Implants. A Prospective Clinical, Radiographic, and RFA Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Neoss implant system has been available since 2004. Few studies documenting the clinical performance of this implant are available. PURPOSE: To study the stability and clinical/radiographic outcomes of Neoss implants 1 year of loading when using a two-stage protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety (90) consecutive patients scheduled for implant treatment using a two-stage procedure were enrolled in a prospective follow-up study. A total of 218 implants (Neoss System, Bimodal surface, Neoss Ltd, Harrogate, UK) in diameters of 3.5, 4.0, and 4.5 mm and in lengths from 7 to 15 mm were placed to support 29 single tooth replacements, 53 partial bridges, 5 full bridges, and 10 overdentures in both jaws. Abutment connection was made after a healing period of 3-4 months. The patients were followed during 1 year of loading with clinical, radiographic, and resonance frequency analysis (Osstell Mentor™, Osstell AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) examinations. Prostheses were removed at the annual check-up for individual testing of implant stability. RESULTS: Three implant failures were experienced, giving a survival rate of 98.6% after 1 year. A mean bone loss of 0.6 mm (SD 0.8) was observed after 1 year. There was a significant inverse correlation between implant diameter and marginal bone loss (p < .003). The mean implant stability quotient levels were 73.7 (SD 7.6), 74.4 (SD 6.4), and 76.7 (SD 5.2) at placement, abutment connection, and first annual check-up, respectively. The stability had increased significantly from placement to 1 year (p < .001) and from abutment to 1 year (p < .0001). Implant stability was higher in the mandible than in the maxilla at all time points. There was a significant correlation between bone quality and stability at placement (p < .0001) and abutment connection (p < .001) but not after 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Neoss implants for prosthetic rehabilitation of consecutive edentate patients with different needs resulted in predictable clinical and radiographic outcomes after 1 year of loading. Implant stability measurements revealed a favorable bone tissue reaction to the implants.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".