3‐Year Prospective Multicenter Study on One‐Stage Implant Surgery and Early Loading in the Edentulous Mandible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The long-term success rates achieved in dental implantology suggest that flexibility might well exist within the various implant systems to a degree that an altered protocol (ie, one-stage surgery and immediate or early loading) can be performed under controlled conditions. However, before variations of the protocol can be considered for general use, they must be subjected to critical analysis, particularly with respect to the predictability of osseointegration, alteration of soft tissue barrier, and relative change in bone height around the implants. PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective multicenter study was to evaluate implant survival and periimplant conditions around endosseous implants placed in a one-stage surgical procedure and early loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 170 implants were placed in 40 patients with mandibular edentulism and were functionally loaded within 6 weeks with overdentures (n = 30) or fixed prostheses (n = 10). All patients and prosthetic constructions were evaluated according to a standardized protocol during 3 years of follow-up. Cumulative implant survival rates were calculated, and implant loss in relation to implant size and bone quality and quantity were evaluated. Furthermore, the protocol included assessment of clinical (plaque and bleeding scores, prosthesis stability) and radiographic parameters. RESULTS: Over a period of 3 years, the implant survival rate was 93% for both implants and prostheses (fixed or removable). No implants were lost after the first year of loading. The periimplant tissues were in a healthy condition. Mean marginal bone resorption from the time of loading to the 3-year follow-up was 0.41 mm (SD 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: From this study it may be concluded that early loading results in good implant survival and proper periimplant health in edentulous mandibles.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".