Immediate Restoration of Immediate Implants in the Esthetic Zone of the Maxilla Via the Copy‐Abutment Technique: 5‐Year Follow‐Up of Pink Esthetic Scores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implant esthetics may benefit from individualized zirconia abutments copying the emergence profile of the natural tooth and delivered within days after immediate implant insertion. PURPOSE: To investigate the esthetic outcome of the Copy-Abutment technique using the Pink Esthetic Score (PES). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 77 patients with single-tooth implants in the anterior maxilla restored at the day of immediate implant placement using Copy-Abutments and provisional crowns were followed-up after 1 week, 1 month, 4 months, 6 months, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years to assess implant esthetics. RESULTS: PES ranged between 7 and 14 (median: 13) and improved significantly between the 6 month and 1 year follow-up (p < .001), then remained stable up to the fifth year. Significant improvement was seen for the variables PES-6 soft tissue color (p = .002) and PES-7 soft tissue texture (p < .001) up to the 1 year follow-up, while PES-5 alveolar process deficiency deteriorated (p = .016). Mean mucosal recession was 0.26 ± 0.86 mm (range: 0-1.6) after 5 years and not related to gingival biotype. CONCLUSION: Copy-Abutments for immediate restoration of implants in the esthetic zone show satisfactory long-term esthetic outcomes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".