CNC‐Milled Titanium Frameworks Supported by Implants in the Edentulous Jaw: A 10‐Year Comparative Clinical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No long-term clinical studies covering more than 5 years are available on Computer Numeric Controlled (CNC) milled titanium frameworks. AIM: To evaluate and compare the clinical and radiographic performance of implant-supported prostheses provided with CNC titanium frameworks in the edentulous jaw with prostheses with cast gold-alloy frameworks during the first 10 years of function. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Altogether, 126 edentulous patients were by random provided with 67 prostheses with titanium frameworks (test) in 23 maxillas and 44 mandibles, and with 62 prostheses with gold-alloy castings (control) in 31 maxillas and 31 mandibles. Clinical and radiographic 10-year data were collected for the groups and statistically compared on patient level. RESULTS: The 10-year prosthesis and implant cumulative survival rate was 95.6% compared with 98.3%, and 95.0% compared with 97.9% for test and control groups, respectively (p > .05). No implants were lost after 5 years of follow-up. Smokers lost more implants than nonsmokers after 5 years of follow-up (p < .01). Mean marginal bone loss in the test group was 0.7 mm (SD 0.61) and 0.7 mm (SD 0.85) in the maxilla and mandible, with similar pattern in the control group (p > .05), respectively. One prosthesis was lost in each group due to loss of implants, and one prosthesis failed due to framework fracture in the test group. Two metal fractures were registered in each group. More appointments of maintenance were needed for the prostheses in the maxilla compared with those in the mandible (p < .001). CONCLUSION: The frequency of complications was low with similar clinical and radiological performance for both groups during 10 years. CNC-milled titanium frameworks are a viable alternative to gold-alloy castings for restoring patients with implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous jaw.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".