Parameters for Successful Implant Integration Revisited Part I: Immediate Loading Considered in Light of the Original Prerequisites for Osseointegration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: With the increasing popularity and publication of loading implants at the time of placement, including at time of dental extraction and simultaneous with reconstructive procedures, the objective was to evaluate known variables identified for a traditional unloaded healing period and determine the applicability of these variables to immediate loading. MATERIALS: A total of 124 published reports available as of January 2008 that contained information about loading from the time of surgery up to 3 months postsurgically were examined in light of published variables affecting osseointegration based on a 2 stage surgical approach. METHODS: The articles were examined to differentiate between immediate loading (within the initial 48 hours) and early/delayed loading of implants. Success or survival criteria were noted, and where reasons for failure were available, categorized according to six variables considered as determinants for maintaining a long-term bone-to-implant contact. RESULTS: Approximately 60 of the 124 reports described immediately loading implants within 48 with single-tooth, partial, and full-arch restorations, as well as implant overdentures. The implant success or survival rates ranged from 70.8% to 100%. Most studies considered implant survival to be the only criterion for success. CONCLUSIONS: Of six parameters identified in 1981 as influencing osseointegration, two parameters (the status of the bone/implant site and implant loading conditions) appear to have diagnostic implications, whereas three (implant design, surgical technique, and implant finish) may affect immediate loading positively or adversely.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".