A randomized controlled clinical trial assessing initial crestal bone remodeling of implants with a different surface roughness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of current split-mouth study is to compare crestal bone loss of hybrid with moderately rough implants in patients with a bar-supported mandibular overdenture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fully edentulous patients were enrolled for treatment with implant-supported overdentures. Each patient received two implants of which one moderately rough (Sa: 1.3 μm) and one hybrid surface implant (moderately rough implant body [Sa: 1.3 μm] and a minimally rough implant neck [Sa: 0.9 μm]). Beside the difference in implant surface the two implants are identical. After 3 and 12 months, peri-apical radiographs were taken to assess crestal bone levels and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for pairwise comparison. RESULTS: Forty-two implants were placed in 21 patients and no failures occurred after 1 year. An overall mean crestal bone loss of 0.40 mm (SD: 0.76; range: 0-3.93) and 0.35 mm (SD: 0.59; range: 0-2.56) was registered after a mean follow-up of 3.4 and 15.8 months. There was no statistical significant difference in crestal bone loss between the different implant surfaces or between the different time intervals. CONCLUSION: From this randomized controlled trial, it can be concluded that hybrid surface implants may be a viable alternative for implant treatment in the edentulous mandible.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".