Survival and Success Rates of Short Straumann Implants Placed in the Mandible: A Retrospective Study with up to 5 Year Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: The purpose of this retrospective, non-interventional, open cohort study is to report on short implants (8 mm’s and less) as used to treat severe atrophic ridges in absence of bone graft. Materials and Methods: Retrospectively all Straumann implant implants of length 6 and 8 mm that were placed in the posterior mandible with no bone graft were evaluated (N= 720). Implant restorations were all splinted together. Bone levels were evaluated at 12 months then at 1-2 year intervals up to 5 years. Results: Among the 720 implants placed, the overall 5-year survival rate was 100%. The overall cumulative success rate of all implants was 95.8% at 3 years and 93.4% at 5 years, respectively. Success rates of the 6 mm implants were 92.3% and 90.5% at 3 and 5 years, respectively. Success rates for the 8 mm implants were found to be 97.2% and 94.6% at 3 and 5 years, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the success rates of 6 and 8 mm implants. Conclustion: Short multiple splinted implants are an effective treatment modality in the resorbed mandible and may provide alternative to bone grafting or nerve transposition.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".