Implant Stability Quotients of Osteotome Bone Expansion and Conventional Drilling Technique for 4.1 mm Diameter Implant at Posterior Mandible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Clinical conclusions in studying the stability and osseointegration of mandibular implants positioned using the bone expansion techniques are conflicting and limited. Purpose The objective was to examine the implant stability quotient (ISQ) values of mandibular posterior dental implants with 4.1 mm diameter that inserted with osteotome bone expansion technique versus conventional drilling technique during a 12‐week observation period. Materials and Methods Twenty‐four implants with 4.1mm diameter in 18 patients were included. Twelve implants in 10 patients were positioned using osteotome bone expansion technique, and 12 fixtures in 9 patients were installed using the conventional drilling technique. The ISQ values of a 3.3 mm diameter implant was measured at recipient sites (ISQb) before final drilling or expansion technique to standardize the increased ISQ value of 4.1 mm diameter implants. The ISQ values at Weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 post‐surgery were recorded. Data were analyzed by Wilcoxon rank sum test, repeated measure ANOVA, and Fisher Lest Significant Difference test. Results Calibrated according to a 3.3‐mm‐diameter implant, bone expansion technique was adopted for the sites with ISQ≦65 bone density, and the areas with ISQ >65 bone condition were treated with conventional drilling technique (p =.038). Both groups presented a similar healing pattern and a comparable ISQ reading from Week 0 to Week 12 (p > .05) for 4.1 mm diameter implants. However, bone expansion technique could enhance more stability when the ISQ values were calibrated by 3.3 mm diameter implant (p < .05). Conclusions Bone expansion technique substantially increased more ISQ values from primary stability and achieved comparable primary and secondary stabilities with the conventional technique. Both groups reached a stability plateaus at Week 10.
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) | 0.000 | 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".