MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2186604548

A prospective human clinical trial of Endopore dental implants in restoring the partially edentulous maxilla using fixed prostheses.

2001· article· en· W2186604548 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas Deporter, Reynaldo Todescan, Philip Watson, Michael J. Pharoah, Robert M. Pilliar, George Tomlinson

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoDouglas College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMaxillaDentistryOsseointegrationImplantRadiographyOrthodonticsDental prosthesisDental AbutmentsAnterior maxillaSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the first report of a group of 50 partially edentulous patients who received a total of 151 Endopore dental implants in the maxilla. A mean implant length of 8.7 mm was used, and 76.8% of implants were placed in the posterior maxilla. At re-entry, all implants appeared to be osseointegrated and were used to support fixed prostheses. Approximately half of the crowns (57%) in these prostheses were splinted to one another, while the remainder (43%) were not. At the time of this report, the mean functional time was 34.6 months and the cumulative survival rate was 97.3% (4 implants had failed). Analysis of carefully standardized sequential radiographs indicated no significant changes in mean crestal bone levels between baseline and any of the examination times (after 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years in function). There were no detectable correlations between crestal bone loss and the factors implant length (7, 9, or 12 mm); implant diameter (3.5, 4.1, or 5.0 mm); implant position anteriorly or posteriorly in the maxilla; or whether or not the implant-supported crowns were splinted.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations35
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→