MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2482848661 · doi:10.1111/cid.12437

Bone Remodeling Around Implants with External Hexagon and Morse‐Taper Connections: A Randomized, Controlled, Split‐Mouth, Clinical Trial

2016· article· en· W2482848661 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Roberto Sales e Pessoa, Ravel Sousa, Leandro Maruki Pereira, Flávio Domingues das Neves, Fábio Bezerra, Siegfried Jaecques, J. Van der Sloten, Marc Quirynen, Wim Teughels, Rubens Spin‐Neto

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDentistryRandomized controlled trialMorse codeMedicineBone remodelingOrthodonticsComputer scienceSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate clinical, radiographic, microbiologic, and biomechanical parameters related to bone remodeling around implants with external hexagon (EH) and Morse-taper (MT) connections. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve totally edentulous patients received four custom-made implants in the interforaminal region of the mandible. Two of those implants had the same macroscopic design, but different prosthetic connections. All patients received an immediate implant-supported prosthesis. Clinical parameters (periimplant probing pocket depth (PPD), modified gingival index (mGI), and mucosal thickness (MTh)) were evaluated at 12 months follow-up. The distance between the top of the implant and the first bone-to-implant contact (IT-FBIC) was evaluated on standardized digital peri-apical radiographs acquired at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up. Samples of the subgingival microbiota were collected 1, 3, and 6 months after implant loading and used for the quantification of Tanerella forsythia, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Aggragatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Prevotella intermedia, and Fusobacterium nucleatum. Further, 36 computerized-tomography based finite element (FE) models were accomplished, simulating each patient under three loading conditions. RESULTS: The evaluated clinical parameters were equal for EH and MT implants. Mean IT-FBIC was significantly different between the tested connections (1.17 ± 0.44 mm for EH, and 0.17 ± 0.54 mm for MT, considering all evaluated time periods). No significant microbiological differences could be observed between tested connections. FE analysis showed a significantly higher peak of equivalent (EQV) strain (p = 0.005) for EH (mean 3,438.65 µε) compared to MT (mean 840.98 µε) connection. CONCLUSIONS: Radiographic periimplant bone loss depends on the implant connection type. MT connections showed less periimplant bone loss, compared to EH connections.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations72
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related ResearchSame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207