Survival rate of titanium‐zirconium narrow diameter dental implants versus commercially pure titanium narrow diameter dental implants: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the existence of several studies validating the use of narrow diameter implants, most of them are based on pure Ti alloys. There is few clinical evidence of the success of TiZr narrow diameter implants (TiZr NDIs) regarding survival rate (SR) and marginal bone loss (MLB). PURPOSE: The aim of this review was to systematically assess SR, as well as MBL of TiZr NDIs compared to commercially pure titanium narrow diameter implants (cpTi NDIs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The search was conducted in Medline/PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Embase databases (year 2000 to November 2016). Cohort studies and randomized trials were included. RESULTS: Six clinical studies from the 3453 articles initially identified met the inclusion criteria. There were no statistically significant differences in SR when TiZr NDIs and cpTi NDIs were compared in the 1-year follow up (P = .5), or when comparing TiZr NDIs placed in posterior and anterior regions. There was no difference between groups regarding 1-year SR: -0.01 (95% CI, -0.05-0.03) and MLB: -0.01 mm (95% CI: -0.14-0.12). CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that TiZr NDIs present similar success rates and peri-implant bone resorption to cpTi NDIs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".