Intraoral versus extraoral cementation of implant‐supported single crowns: Clinical, biomarker, and microbiological comparisons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Implant supported single metal-ceramic crowns cemented either extraorally or intraorally were comparatively evaluated by clinical, radiologic, biomarker, and microbiological parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve patients with bilateral single tooth gap in the maxillary posterior region received two locking-taper implants; 4.5 mm width, 8 mm length. Selection of intraoral (IOC) or extraoral cementation (EOC) using screwless titanium abutments was done randomly. Peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF), gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) samples were collected from the implants, adjacent teeth, and bleeding on probing, soft tissue thickness, keratinized tissue width were recorded before starting the prosthetic procedures (baseline) and 3, 6 months after implant loading. Crestal bone loss was measured on radiographs taken immediately and 6 months after cementation. Cytokine levels, amounts of bacteria were determined in PICF/GCF samples. Data were tested by appropriate statistical analyses. RESULTS: Clinical findings were similar in the crowns cemented extraorally or intraorally at all times (P < .05). PICF and GCF data were similar. At 3 month, interleukin-17E and osteoprotegerin levels were lower in the intraorally cemented crowns. CONCLUSION: Extraorally and intraorally cemented crowns exhibited similar crestal bone loss after loading. Higher amount of osteoprotegerin at 3 month at the EOC than the IOC sites might bode well for good osseointegration.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".