Short‐term report of an ongoing prospective cohort study evaluating the outcome of full‐arch implant‐supported fixed hybrid polyetheretherketone‐acrylic resin prostheses and the All‐on‐Four concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More research is needed on the study of new materials for fixed prosthetic implant-supported rehabilitations. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to report the short-term outcome of full-arch implant-supported fixed hybrid polyetheretherketone (PEEK)-acrylic resin prostheses and the all-on-four concept. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective cohort clinical study included 37 patients (29 women, eight men) with an average age of 60 years (range: 38-78 years) with 49 full-arch hybrid PEEK-acrylic resin prosthesis supported by implants through the all-on-four concept. Primary outcome measures were prosthetic survival. RESULTS: Two patients with two maxillary prostheses were lost to follow-up. One patient with a double full-arch rehabilitation fractured the mandibular PEEK framework, rendering a 98% prosthetic survival rate. No implants were lost. The average (SD) marginal bone remodeling after 1 year of follow-up was 0.37 mm (0.58 mm). Technical complications concerning the veneer adhesion occurred in six patients and were resolved in all patients (with exception of the patient with prosthetic failure) through the creation of mechanical retentions and changing the bonding primer. Mechanical complications occurred in three patients and five prostheses consisting in prosthetic screw loosening (n = 2 patients) and fracture of the acrylic resin teeth (the patient with a prosthetic failure). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, the results suggest that hybrid polymer (PEEK)-acrylic resin prostheses supported by implants for full-arch rehabilitation may represent a valid treatment option, still requiring longer-term validation.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".