Esthetic Assessment of Implants Placed into Fresh Extraction Sockets for Single‐Tooth Replacements Using a Flapless Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To validate the concept of immediate implant placement and nonfunctional loading for use in the esthetically sensitive anterior maxilla, clinical trials should ideally include objective esthetic criteria. PURPOSE: This study analyzed procedural results as graded by the pink esthetic score and white esthetic score (PES/WES). METHODS: Thirty-nine suitable patients (mean follow-up 44.82 ± 28 months) were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-eight implants fulfilled stringent criteria for successful osseointegration: absence of peri-implant radiolucency, implant mobility, suppuration, and pain. The mean total PES/WES was 15.50 ± 2.67 (range: 10-20). The mean total PES of 7.92 ± 1.60 (range: 5-10) indicated favorable overall peri-implant soft-tissue conditions. Root convexity and texture (1.63 ± 0.54) and curvature of the facial mucosa (1.68 ± 0.47) and distal papilla (1.66 ± 0.48) had the highest mean values, whereas acceptable levels of facial tissue (1.53 ± 0.73) and mesial papilla (1.42 ± 0.64) were the most difficult to fully achieve. The mean mesial and distal bone loss at data collection was, was 1.19 ± 0.54 and 1.15 ± 0.51, respectively. Periodontal disease severity (advanced chronic and aggressive periodontitis) was significantly associated with a low total PES (p = .048). CONCLUSIONS: Objective PES/WES assessment validated immediate anterior maxillary single-tooth replacement and restoration as being a successful and esthetically predictable treatment modality in sites where the buccal bone had been preserved during the extraction at 1 year of follow-up.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".