Dental implant suprastructures using cobalt–chromium alloy compared with gold alloy framework veneered with ceramic or acrylic resin: a retrospective cohort study up to 18 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An association between the long-term success and survival of implant-supported prostheses as a function of biomaterial combinations has not been established. The use of cast cobalt-chromium for the suprastructure framework may be an alternative to the conventional approach of using type 3 gold alloys. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart audit of all patients who had received implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDP) before 1996 was identified in a private practice clinic. Data were recorded for FDPs made from four combinations of alloy frameworks and veneering material, i.e. type 3 gold and cobalt-chromium with ceramic or prefabricated acrylic teeth. The extracted data from the charts were subjected to explorative statistical tests including Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. RESULTS: Patients (n=198) with 270 short and extensive FDPs supported entirely by 1117 implants were identified. The average follow-up observation periods varied between 4 and 220 months, with an average of 120 months. The success and survival, as well as event rates and types of biological and technical complications, were similar for implant-supported FDPs using cobalt-chromium and type 3 gold alloy frameworks veneered with ceramics or prefabricated acrylic teeth. An influence of the suprastructure biomaterial combination on the clinical performance of the individual supporting implants could not be established. CONCLUSIONS: Implant-supported FDPs made from type 3 gold or cobalt-chromium frameworks and veneered with ceramic or prefabricated acrylic teeth demonstrate comparable clinical performance. The biomaterial combinations do not appear to influence the success or survival of the individual 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".