“Simpli5y” a noval concept for fixed rehabilitation of completely edentulous maxillary and mandibular edentulous arches: A 3‐year randomized clinical trial, supported by a numerical analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical outcome of "simpli5y" concept where in 3 and 2 implant placed cross arch in maxilla and in mandible respectively, restored with screw retained prosthesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Total of 30 patients were randomized, with 15 in group1 with an average of 45 Ncm insertion torque with delayed loading and 15 in group 2 with above 65 Ncm inertion torque with immediate loading with equal number of male and female in each group following parallel design with 3 implants in maxillary and 2 implants in mandibular arch placed which was supported by a 3Dimensional finite analysis comparing the stress dissipation around implants of this concept-"Simplif5y" with All-on-4 concept. RESULTS: Von Mises strain recorded in the bone in the maxillary and mandibular arch models were higher in All-on-four than that in the "simpli5y", which was vice-versa in the framework. Three-year post loading marginal peri implant bone loss for the group 1 was less than group 2. CONCLUSIONS: These results, suggest that in both delayed loading and immediate loading protocol that cross arch prostheses can be successfully supported by 3 and 2 implants in maxillary and mandibular arch respectively-"Simpli5y" concept of full mouth restoration.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".