Success and Survival Rates of Dental Implants Restored at an Undergraduate Dental Clinic: A 13-Year Retrospective Study with a Mean Follow-up of 5.8 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical, radiographic, and patient-based outcomes of dental implants placed at an undergraduate student dental clinic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed to determine the success and survival rates of dental implants placed at the undergraduate dental clinic at Dalhousie University between January 1999 and January 2012. Only patients with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. Clinical and radiographic assessments determined implant success and survival rates. Questionnaires recorded patients' satisfaction with esthetics, comfort, and ease of hygiene. RESULTS: Of the 352 patients (n = 591 implants) who received implants over 13 years, 165 patients completed the clinical and radiographic examinations. By the end of the study period, demographic information and implant characteristics were collected for 111 (n = 217 implants; 47.5% in the maxilla, 52.6% in the mandible) of these patients. Of those assessed clinically, 36.4% were males and 63.6% females, with a mean age of 56.1 ± 14.15 years (range, 17 to 86 years) at the time of implant placement. The mean follow-up period was 5.8 years (range, 1 to 13 years). The overall implant success and survival rates were 88.0% and 97.2%, respectively. No observable bone loss was evident in 88.0% of the surviving implants. There were no implant fractures. Most patients (91.2%) were very satisfied with the implant restoration appearance, 88.0% were very comfortable with the implant, 92.6% were very satisfied with their ability to chew, and 84.8% reported easy hygiene maintenance at the implant sites. CONCLUSION: Implant success and survival in an undergraduate student clinic were comparable to those reported in the literature. It seems that inexperienced students were able to provide restorations that were very satisfying to the patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".