Stability and Crestal Bone Behavior Following Simultaneous Placement of Multiple Dental Implants (Two or More) with the Bone Splitting Technique: A Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The present study aimed to measure the implant stability quotient (ISQ) values at three different time points after surgical procedures and crestal bone behavior in multiple implants (two or more) installed simultaneously with the bone splitting technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this study, 45 patients with different edentulous areas in the maxilla were selected, and a total of 114 dental implants were installed. Implant stability was measured by resonance frequency analysis immediately following implant placement to assess immediate stability (time 1) and stability at 90 days (time 2), and 150 days (time 3). Crestal bone height was measured in peri-apical radiographs at 90 and 150 days after implantation in relation to each implant shoulder, given that the implants were installed at the level of the crestal bone. RESULTS: Six implants were not osseointegrated. Overall, the means and standard deviations of the ISQ values were 60.3 ± 4.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 44-69) at baseline, 66.6 ± 5.28 (95% CI, 49-75) at 90 days, and 72.1 ± 4.28 (95% CI, 59-79) at 150 days (p < 0.0001). The mean marginal bone loss of the implants was 1.11 ± 0.61 mm on the mesial side and 1.17 ± 0.61 mm on the distal side at time 2, and 1.73 ± 0.68 mm on the mesial side and 1.79 ± 0.70 mm on the distal side at time 3. A strong positive correlation between implant stability and bone loss was detected (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study, the bone splitting technique with simultaneous implant installation exhibited a good success rate with respect to the osseointegration index but requires attention with respect to crestal bone behavior.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".