MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2792673199 · doi:10.1111/cid.12604

A randomized controlled clinical trial to assess crestal bone remodeling of four different implant designs

2018· article· en· W2792673199 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maarten Glibert, Stijn Vervaeke, Wolfgang Jacquet, K. Vermeersch, Pär‐Olov Östman, Hugo De Bruyn

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDentistryImplantAbutmentBone remodelingCoronal planeRandomized controlled trialOrthodonticsDental prosthesisDental AbutmentsSurvival rateSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It is claimed that bone remodeling is limited when the implant neck has microthreads and an internal abutment connection. However, comparative studies, excluding confounding factors, are scarce. AIM: This RCT aims to assess whether a coronal microthreaded design and an internal abutment connection affects crestal bone loss, up to one year of function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one maxillary edentulous patients were consecutively treated for a bar supported maxillary overdenture on four different implants with respectively: internal connection and microthreads on the implant neck (I MT); internal connection, no microthreads (I NMT), external connection, with microthreads (E MT), and external connection, without microthreads (E NMT). Other design features, s.a. width, surface topography, platform switch as well as surgical placement and prosthetic protocol were consistent. Implant survival and crestal bone loss in relation to the implant type were considered the main variables and a Friedman test for ordered alternatives was used to assess the difference in crestal bone loss between the different study implants. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients received 83 study implants. Three implants failed within three months and required replacement. The total survival rate was 96.39% after one year and based on 21 patients and 80 implants a mean crestal bone loss of 0.25 mm (SD: 0.38; range: 0-1.48) was measured. After a follow-up of 3, 6, 12, and 21 months no statistically significant differences in crestal bone loss between the different study implants or the different time intervals could be identified. CONCLUSIONS: From this RCT, it is concluded that the implant-abutment connection and a microthreaded external thread configuration have limited influence on crestal bone remodeling. The latter can be considered a multifactorial process and is more dependent on other factors such as biologic considerations than on implant design.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.426
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.119 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→