Randomized controlled clinical trial comparing two dental implants with different neck configurations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peri-implant bone levels can vary according to the implant neck macro-design and the implant-abutment interface. PURPOSE: To compare the changes in soft and hard tissues when using a one-piece implant with a machined collar (TG) versus a two-piece implant with a progressive platform widening and a platform switching connection (SP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Partially edentulous patients willing to receive one or two implants in the posterior maxilla or mandible were randomized to the control (TG) or to the test group (SP). Final prostheses were delivered after 12 months. Radiographic measurements of interproximal bone levels (primary outcome) were assessed at implant loading and 1-year postloading. Clinical, patient related outcomes and adverse events were assessed at loading and after 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Sixty-one implants were placed in 47 patients, 37 patients (18 in the TG group and 19 in the SP group), and 47 implants (23 TG and 24 SP) completed the 24-months follow up. At the patient level, a significantly greater bone resorption from baseline to implant loading was observed in the SP group (-0.42 ± 0.45 vs -0.07 ± 0.45; P = .001*), while from loading to the final visit, the TG group had significantly greater bone loss than the SP group (-0.26 ± 0.22 vs -0.11 ± 0.2; P = .020*). At 24 months after surgery, there were no significant differences between both groups (control: 0.33 ± 0.49 vs test: 0.53 ± 0.53; P = .230). Similarly, no significant differences were observed for the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Both types of implant reported high survival rates and similar bone level changes, clinical parameters, and patient related outcomes after 12 months of loading.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".