Long‐term clinical outcome of single implants inserted flaplessly or conventionally
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Flapless implant surgery is mostly performed using guided surgical protocols, however, long-term studies on free-handed flapless surgery for single implants are lacking. PURPOSE: This prospective study evaluates bone level changes, peri-implant health, and complications of solitary implants placed using a conventional flap (F) or flaplessly (FL) after 6-9 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-three single TiUnite Brånemark implants were originally inserted in 49 patients using an one-stage delayed loading protocol with flap (n = 27, F) or flaplessly (n = 26, FL) based on available bone volume and surgeon's decision-making. Thirty-six patients with 37 implants participated in the prospective follow-up investigation 6-9 years later whereby survival, bone level changes, peri-implant health, and complications were assessed. RESULTS: After 88 months (range 76-107), all implants were survived. For F and FL combined, the overall average radiographic bone level was above the first implant thread, 1.26 mm apical of the implant-abutment junction (SD 1.08; 0-4.9) and statistically comparable. Bone loss from time of loading was 0.49 mm (SD 1.1; -1.3 to 2.8) for F and -0.89 mm (SD 1.0; -2.8 to 0.7) for FL (P < .01), suggesting regrowth of bone in FL due to initial countersinking. One implant (2.7%) had a probing depth above 5 mm. CONCLUSION: Free-handed flapless implant surgery for single implants with neighboring teeth is a predictable long-term treatment provided when there is sufficient bone volume.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".