MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612003922 · doi:10.1111/cid.12494

Risk factors for single crowns supported by short (6‐mm) implants in the posterior region: A prospective clinical and radiographic study

2017· article· en· W2612003922 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eduardo Aydos Villarinho, Diego Fernandes Triches, Fernando Rizzo Alonso, Luís André Mezzomo, Eduardo Rolim Teixeira, Rosemary Sadami Arai Shinkai

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoInternational Trachoma Initiative
KeywordsMedicineImplantCrown (dentistry)DentistryMaxillaRadiographyMandible (arthropod mouthpart)Prospective cohort studyImplant failureSurvival rateOrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The use of short implants is still not a consensus for challenging clinical situations, such as unfavorable crown-to-implant (C/I) ratio. PURPOSE: This prospective study evaluated the rates of prosthetic complications and implant failure, the mean marginal bone loss of 6-mm dental implants with single crowns in posterior regions and the potential risk factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-six dental implants, 6-mm long and 4.1-mm wide, were placed in the posterior region in 20 patients. Patients were clinically and radiographically examined after the restoration with single crowns and on a yearly basis. Potential risk factors (arch, bruxism, maximum bite force, anatomical and clinical C/I ratios, and occlusal table area) were analyzed according to the following outcomes: implant survival, bone loss, and prosthetic complications. RESULTS: The mean follow-up time was 45 ± 9 (16-57) months. There was no early loss of implants. After prosthetic loading, 4 implants were lost (2 in the mandible and 2 in the maxilla; 91.3% survival), and there were 13 prosthetic complications (28.3%), yielding a 65.2% success rate. The frailty term showed a 95% greater chance of loss in the mandible than the maxilla. Mean peri-implant bone loss was of 0.2 ± 0.4 mm, 0.1 ± 0.2 mm, 0.1 ± 0.3 mm, and 0.2 ± 0.4 mm in the first, second, third, and fourth years, respectively, with a mean cumulative loss of 0.3 ± 0.5 mm at 48 months. In the multilevel model, the effects of the clinical C/I ratio and time were significant for bone loss (P < .001). It was estimated that a mean bone loss of 0.1 mm is associated with both a one-unit increase in time (12 months) and a 0.1 increase in the clinical C/I ratio. The other potential risk factors showed no significant relationship with the outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The 6-mm implants supporting single crowns performed well, but the mandible shows a higher risk of failure. The time and clinical C/I ratio are predictors for bone loss.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations38
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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