MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154456881 · doi:10.2310/j.6480.2005.00034.x

Scalloped Dental Implants: A Retrospective Analysis of Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of 17 NobelPerfect<sup>TM</sup> Implants in 6 Patients

2006· article· en· W2154456881 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hessam Nowzari, Winston Chee, Klaus Yi, Mark Pak, Woun Ho Chung, Sandra K. Rich

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCore Research for Evolutional Science and TechnologyUniversity of Southern California
KeywordsSoft tissueOsseointegrationMedicineImplantDentistryRadiographyCementoenamel junctionHard tissueGingival marginOrthodonticsSurgeryMolar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The scalloped dental implant (NobelPerfect, Nobel Biocare, Yorba Linda, CA, USA) is designed to biologically guide and facilitate interproximal bone remodeling during healing and to maintain bone height and papillae during functional loading. The design features of the scalloped implant include hard and soft tissue apposition areas, which are parallel to each other and mirror the cementoenamel junction. The hard tissue surface area is intended for osseointegration. The soft tissue surface area is meant to support the connective tissue zone and to provide a space for the subgingival margin of the restoration. Current literature on the clinical performance of the scalloped dental implant is limited. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the scalloped dental implant maintains interproximal bone and the overlying soft tissue. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiographs for six patients (mean age 40.5 years) treated with 17 implants (NobelPerfect) were reviewed for an 18-month follow-up evaluation of bone response. Orthodontic movement and/or autogenous bone augmentation had been provided to obtain the best possible soft and hard tissue dimensions prior to implant placement. A surgical guide was used for an optimal implant placement. No surgical flap was reflected, and implants were placed a minimum of 2 mm and a maximum of 3 mm apical (midbuccally) to the most apical portion of the surgical guide. Final optimal rotational alignment was achieved in all cases by not exceeding 45 Ncm. Implants were immediately restored with provisional crowns. Photographic documentation provided the basis for analysis of papillary response. Radiographic change in the interproximal bone level was obtained by computer analysis (ImageJ for Windows, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD) by measuring the distance from the interproximal shoulder of the scalloped implant to the crest of the bone. RESULTS: When the scalloped implants were placed adjacent to existing natural dentition, the average bone level at placement and at 6, 12, and 18 months was -1.7, -3.5, -3.8, and -3.9 mm, respectively, compared with -1.0, -3.6, -4.3, and -4.4 mm respectively, when placed adjacent to other scalloped implants. Papillae formation exhibited no differences from the configuration that typically results after placement of conventional dental implants. Moreover, bone loss around the scalloped implants was notably greater than that expected after traditional implant placement. CONCLUSION: This chart review of 17 scalloped implants, followed for 18 months, determined that the scalloped implant design resulted in bone loss that was more severe than that associated with properly placed conventional dental implants. Further, the design showed no evidence of exceptional capacity to increase or maintain soft tissue height.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.376 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related ResearchSame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207