Five‐year cohort prospective study on single implants in the esthetic area restored using one‐abutment/one‐time prosthetic approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was aimed to investigate, over 5 years, bone response to "one-abutment onetime" (OA-OT) protocol in the restoration of implants inserted in the anterior maxilla. Additionally, influence of soft tissue biotype in the bone remodeling was investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2011 to January 2012, all consecutive patients presented with a hopeless tooth in the maxillary area between canines were enrolled. Post-extraction ridge preservation was performed. After 6 months, implant was midcrestaly inserted and intraoperative impression was taken. Two months thereafter an immediate definitive abutment with a provisional crown was inserted. At final crown connection, patients underwent a standardized periapical radiograph (T0). At 12 (T1), 24 (T2), 36 (T3), 48 (T4), and 60 (T5) months, radiographic follow-up and clinical control were carried out. Independent sample t-test was conducted to compare bone loss at different times. To detect the potential role of biotype, groups (thick TK vs thin TH) were compared by analysis of variance with general linear model. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were enrolled, but only 22 patients concluded the study. The radiographic analysis showed a stable longitudinal condition of bone levels after the first-year significant increasing (0.17 ± 0.25mm, 0.33 ± 0.25mm, 0.28 ± 0.27mm, 0.25 ± 0.26mm, 0.31 ± 0.35mm, and 0.31 ± 0.29mm, respectively at T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5). No statistical significant differences in bone loss among the two groups TH vs TK over the time (P = 0.952) were demonstrated. CONCLUSION: Results showed that the OA-OT approach allow to obtain stable bone levels.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".