Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial: Early Loading of Implants in Maxillary Bone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to show prognostic equivalence between implant loading in the maxilla after 12 weeks versus 4 weeks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred four patients, from four centers in this open-labeled randomized multicenter prospective controlled clinical trial, were assigned to either 12 weeks or 4 weeks of unloaded healing. Two hundred sixty-nine implants (sand blasted large-grid, acid etched [SLA] surface, ≥ 4.1 mm diameter; ≥ 10 mm length) were inserted and evaluated during an individual 5-year follow-up. Primary outcome was implant success after 12 months; prognostic equivalence was characterized by a maximum difference of ± 5% in implant failure rates. RESULTS: Implant-wise 1-year failure rates were estimated 3.1% (5/163 implants) in the 4 weeks group versus 3.6% (4/112 implants) in the 12 weeks group (95% confidence interval [CI] for the difference -3.2 -+4.2%); implant-wise evaluation demonstrated statistically significant prognostic equivalence of 4 and 12 weeks loading. Patient-wise 1-year failure rates were estimated 6.7% (n = 4 patients) in the 4 weeks group versus 5.1% (n = 2 patients) in the 12 weeks group (95% CI for the difference -9.6 -+6.5%). All implant failures occurred within the first 3 months of the individual observation period. Prior bone augmentation, underdimensioned drilling, bone quality, implant type, implant length, implant diameter, residual teeth, and fixing of the restoration did not reveal associations with the implant outcome: trial site, posterior jaw region, and splinting were associated with a higher failure rate. Resonance frequency analysis did not serve as a predictor of implant failures at the time of implant insertion. CONCLUSION: Loading of standard SLA implants in the maxilla 4 weeks versus 12 weeks after insertion resulted in statistically equivalent failure patterns within a 1-year follow-up period; nevertheless, the observed patient-wise failure patterns of the interim analysis requires further understanding of patient-individual aspects of the early loading concept.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".