A clinical and radiological long‐term follow‐up study of narrow diameter implants in the aesthetic area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study long-term function of narrow diameter implants (NDI:s) and if reduced implant-tooth distance negatively impacts adjacent teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A clinical and radiological follow-up of NDI:s replacing maxillary laterals and mandibular incisors was performed. Subjects that received 3.0-3.3 mm-diameter single implants from 3 units in Uppsala and Västerås, Sweden, between 2002 and 2011 were offered to participate in this retrospective study. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients (30 implants) underwent clinical and CBCT examination, mean follow-up time was 63.3 months. On average, the implant-tooth distance was 1.6 mm at the cervical region and 17 implants were placed 1 mm or less to the adjacent root. Additionally, 2 patients (3 implants) underwent clinical examination (I). Twenty-seven patients (36 implants) declined the examination but agreed to an interview (II). At the time of the follow-up, all implants had good function, and implant survival of group I and II together was 97.2%. In both groups, the 2 main patient concerns were discoloration and regression of the buccal gingiva. CONCLUSION: Survival of implants is in accordance to standard diameter studies and although most implants were placed very close to the adjacent teeth, no pathologies could be linked to this except aesthetic concerns.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".