MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Long‐Term Follow‐Up of CeraOne™ Single‐Implant Restorations: An 18‐Year Follow‐Up Study Based on a Prospective Patient Cohort

2010· article· en· W2157075484 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sibel Bergenblock, Bernt Andersson, Björn Fürst, Torsten Jemt

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCrown (dentistry)DentistryImplantBleeding on probingDental prosthesisProspective cohort studyRadiographyCohort studyOrthodonticsSurgeryPeriodontitis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Knowledge on long-term clinical performance of more than 5 years on the single-implant CeraOne™ (Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) concept is limited. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to report the long-term clinical performance of the first CeraOne single-implant restorations, installed 17 to 19 years ago. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The group comprised 57 patients provided with 65 CeraOne single-tooth restorations. Sixty-two all-ceramic and three metal-ceramic crowns were cemented between 1989 and 1991. Patients were followed up clinically and with intraoral radiographs at placement, after 1, 5, and between 17 and 19 years after placement. RESULTS: Data were available for altogether 48 patients, followed up on an average time of 18 years. Excluding deceased patients (n=2) and failed implant patients (n=2), only five patients were lost to follow-up (8.8%). Two implants failed, resulting in an 18-year implant cumulative success rate (CSR) of 96.8%, and altogether eight original single-crown restorations were replaced (CSR 83.8%). The most common reason for crown replacement was infra-position of the implant crown (n=3). Many of the remaining original crowns showed various signs of implant crown infraposition at the termination of the study. In general, the soft tissue at the restorations was assessed to be healthy and comparable with the gingiva at the adjacent natural teeth. Bone levels were on an average stable with only few patients exhibiting bone loss of more than 2mm during 18 years in function. CONCLUSION: This long-term follow-up study of single-implant restorations shows encouraging results with few implant failures and minimal bone loss over an 18-year period. Original single-crown restorations were replaced more frequently, because of, for example, implant crown infraposition and veneer fractures. The CeraOne concept proved to be a highly predictable and safe prosthodontic treatment.

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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Citations68
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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