MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2200914005

하악 구치부에 식립한 sintered porous surfaced implants의 후향적 다기관 연구

2009· article· ko· W2200914005 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
김우성, 안경미, 손동석, 정희승, 신임희

Bibliographic record

Venue대한치과의사협회지 · 2009
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrown (dentistry)ImplantDentistrySurvival rateMedicineStatistical analysisOrthodonticsSurgeryMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival rate of sintered porous-surfaced implants placed in the edentulous posterior mandibles, in relation to implant length and diameter, crown-to-implant ratio, and types of prostheses, for a maximum of eight years of functioning. Material and Methods: The study group consisted of 43 partially edentulous patients who visited Catholic University Hospital of Daegu and one private dental clinic. A total of 122 sintered porous-surfaced implants - Endopore R (Innova Life Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada) - were placed in the edentulous posterior mandibles. Two diameter sizes (4.1 ㎜ and 5.0㎜) and four lengths (5.0㎜, 7.0㎜, 9.0㎜, and 12.0㎜) were used. One hundred and three implants were splinted and 21 implants were non-splinted. The survival rates of the implants in relation to length, diameter, crown-to-implant ratio, and types of prostheses were investigated. Statistical data were analyzed using SPSS Win. Ver 14.0 software with the Chi-square test. Results: The survival rate of the 4.1㎜ diameter implants was 100% and 91.2%) for the 5.0㎜ diameter implants. The survival rates of the implants of differing diameters were found to be statistically different (p=0.005). The survival rates of both the 5.0㎜ and 7.0㎜ length implants were 100%. The survival rate of the 9.0㎜ length implants was 97.9% and for the 12.0㎜ length implants was 95.1%. There was no statistical difference in survival rates for the differing lengths of implants. Of the 103 prostheses that were splinted, the survival rate was 98.0%. The survival rate of splinted prostheses was higher than that of the non-splinted prostheses, but was found to be not statistically different. There were no failed cases when the crown-to-implant ratio was under 1.0. When the crown-to-implant ratio was between 1.0 and 1.5, the failure rate of the implants was 6.7%. No failure was recorded with the ratio range of 1.5 to 2.0. Relative to the crown-to-implant ratio of 1.0, the failure rates were statistically different (p=0.048). Discussion and Conclusion: The cumulative survival rate of the porous-surfaced implants placed in the edentulous posterior mandibles was 97.5%. Short porous-surfaced implants showed satisfactory results after a maximum of nine years of functioning in the edentulous posterior 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.007

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.289 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue대한치과의사협회지Same topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207