MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2539335200 · doi:10.1111/cid.12456

The NobelGuide<sup>®</sup> All‐on‐4<sup>®</sup> Treatment Concept for Rehabilitation of Edentulous Jaws: A Retrospective Report on the 7‐Years Clinical and 5‐Years Radiographic Outcomes

2016· article· en· W2539335200 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Armando Lopes, Paulo Maló, Miguel de Araújo Nobre, Elena Sánchez‐Fernández, Inês Gravito

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProsthesisImplantDentistryRadiographySurvival rateAbutmentRehabilitationDental prosthesisRetrospective cohort studyDentitionSurgeryPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background There is a necessity of studies documenting the long‐term outcome of full‐arch flapless rehabilitations. Purpose To evaluate the 7 years implant and prosthesis survival rate and 5‐years marginal bone loss of full‐arch fixed prosthetic rehabilitations supported by implants in immediate function with the All‐on‐4® treatment concept using a computer guided surgical protocol (NobelGuide®, Nobel Biocare). Materials and Methods This retrospective clinical study included 111 edentulous patients (n = 53 bruxers; n = 21 smokers; n = 59 systemically compromised), rehabilitated between February 2005 and November 2010 with 532 implants with the All‐on‐4® treatment concept using NobelGuide®. Outcome measures were implant and prosthesis survival, marginal bone loss at 5‐years and the incidence of mechanical and biological complications. Survival was calculated using life‐table analysis. Inferential analysis was performed to compare the difference in marginal bone loss between axial and tilted implants. Results Sixteen patients were lost to follow‐up. The implant cumulative survival rate was 94.5% at 7 years. Prosthetic survival was 97.8% (n = 3 prosthetic failures). The average (standard deviation) marginal bone loss at 5 years was 1.3 mm (1.06 mm) overall, 1.27 mm (1.02 mm) for tilted implants and 1.34 mm (1.1 mm) for axial implants (p < .001). Ninety‐one patients experienced complications in the provisional prostheses (n = 47 patients who were bruxers; n = 25 patients with implant‐supported rehabilitation as opposing dentition) ranging from prosthetic fracture (n = 66 patients) to abutment or prosthetic screw loosening (n = 74 patients). Thirty‐three patients experienced complications in the definitive prostheses (all exclusive to patients who were bruxers or had implant‐supported rehabilitations as opposing dentition) ranging from acrylic‐resin prosthetic/crown fracture (n = 23 patients) to abutment or prosthetic screw loosening (n = 10 patients). Twenty‐five patients (22%) registered peri‐implant pathology. Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, it is possible to conclude that this treatment modality for completely edentulous jaws is possible with high long‐term survival outcomes. Bruxing and smoking habits had a negative impact on implant failure, mechanical, and biological complications.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations66
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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