MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2470706685 · doi:10.1111/cid.12433

Terminal Posterior Tilted Implants Planned as a Sinus Graft Alternative for Fixed Full‐Arch Implant‐Supported Maxillary Restoration: A Case Series with 10‐ to 19‐Year Results on 44 Consecutive Patients Presenting for Routine Maintenance

2016· article· en· W2470706685 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yvan Fortin, Richard M. Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImplantDentistryBridge (graph theory)Maxillary sinusMaxillaEdentulismSinus (botany)Dental prosthesisPosterior teethSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Posterior maxillary tilted implants are gaining prevalence as an alternative to sinus grafts supporting fixed maxillary restorations. This paper reports long-term results after loading using this technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients presenting for either routine hygiene maintenance or unplanned emergency care who had received tilted implants as a sinus graft alternative to support fixed fully implant-supported restoration of an edentulous maxilla and were followed for a minimum of 10 years from initial implant placement were included in this evaluation. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were identified: 40 with bilateral tilted implants and 4 with one tilted and one axial posterior implant. Eight patients received one-piece fixed porcelain-to-gold screw-retained restorations, and thirty-six patients received a fully implant-supported patient-removable Marius Bridge. Seventy-nine out of 84 originally loaded posterior tilted implants survived a minimum of 10 years loading; one tilted implant was lost at 10 years. Eight additional posterior implants were placed for either these lost tilted posterior implants or as proactive supplemental support; one of these replacement tilted implants survived for at least 10 years and is included in the data. All patients have maintained continuous fixed function throughout the follow-up period. Forty-one out of 44 patients continue with the original restoration, 33 without modification or removal of the fixed restoration or implant-connecting bar. One porcelain-to-gold and seven Marius Bridges had framework modifications to accommodate additional implants; 3 Marius Bridge restorations were replaced with a newer generation. CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this retrospective study, the results show that continuous fixed function of fully implant-supported maxillary restorations using posterior tilted implants in terminal positions of support as a sinus graft alternative combined with axial anterior implants is possible over a prolonged period. Loss of a posterior tilted implant after loading is treatable with another tilted, zygomatic or axial implant, typically requiring only modification of the fixed restoration.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→