Early Loading of Machined‐Surf ace Brånemark Implants in Completely Edentulous Mandibles: Healed Bone versus Fresh Extraction Sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Restoration of edentulous mandibles with dental implants installed with a two-stage or one-stage surgical approach, yet with delayed loading, is a predictable and successful treatment. PURPOSE: The present prospective study evaluated the success up to 3 years of function of nonroughened machined-surface Brånemark System implants (Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) loaded early or immediately with a fixed 12-unit bridge. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 184 implants were installed in 36 patients: 30 with healed bone and 6 with some remaining teeth, which were extracted simultaneously with implant installation. The provisional or final prostheses were installed 0 to 52 (mean 18.2) days later. RESULTS: Thirteen of 184 (7.1%) implants failed within 3 months of loading in 5 of 36 (13.9%) patients: 1 of 153 implants (0.7%) failed in healed bone, and 12 of 31 (39%) failed in fresh extraction sites. This consequently meant a loss of 3 of 36 (8.3%) prostheses, all in the extraction group. No implants were lost during 3 years of functional loading (16 patients, 75 implants). The average marginal bone level measured initially and after 1, 2, and 3 years was 0.8 mm (SD = 0.5), 1.0 mm (SD = 0.4), 1.1 mm (SD = 0.3), and 1.4 mm (SD = 0.5), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Four to six Brånemark implants with nonroughened machined titanium surfaces can be loaded early or immediately with cross-arch restorations in healed mandibulary bone, but this cannot be recommended for fresh extraction sites.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".