MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2892884749 · doi:10.1111/cid.12666

A prospective study on ultra‐wide diameter dental implants for immediate molar replacement

2018· article· en· W2892884749 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
André Hattingh, Geert Hommez, Hugo De Bruyn, Marie Huyghe, Stefan Vandeweghe

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDentistryMolarCrown (dentistry)ImplantCoronal planeMaxillaMandible (arthropod mouthpart)OsseointegrationOrthodonticsAbutmentSurgeryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although wide diameter implants are well documented, little is known about ultra-wide diameter implants (>6 mm). This study evaluates the clinical outcome of ultra-wide diameter implants, placed in molar extraction sockets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ultra-wide diameter implants (7-9 mm) were placed immediately after molar extraction in a 1-stage protocol, without raising a flap or using any bone grafts. After 4 months, the implant was loaded with a single screw-retained crown. Bone loss was evaluated using peri-apical radiographs. Plaque and bleeding were recorded. Crown and papilla dimensions were measured and compared with the contra-lateral tooth. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients (36 male and 15 female), mean ages 61 years old, were treated with 26 implants in the maxilla and 25 implants in the mandible. The majority had a thick (#19) or medium (#31) biotype. After a mean-follow-up period of 23 months, the mean bone level was located 1.16 mm apical of the implant-abutment junction (SD 0.42, range 0.00-2.45) while the actual bone remodeling associated with socket healing resulted in a mean coronal movement of the bone level of 0.15 mm. The mean insertion torque was 116 Ncm (SD 53, range 10-250). There were no differences in papilla height (P = .55), crown length (P = .32), zenith (P = .84), and bucco-palatal dimensions (P = .38). There was a significant difference in the mesio-distal dimension (P = .01). Mean probing depth was 2.59 mm at the implant and 2.23 mm at the contra-lateral tooth (P = .001). There was significantly more plaque at the tooth compared to the implant (P = .01), but there was no significant difference in terms of bleeding on probing (P = .08). Patient satisfaction was high with 72.5% of the patients experiencing no problems at all. CONCLUSIONS: Ultra-wide diameter implants have a predictable outcome, demonstrating very little bone loss. Papilla and crown dimensions were comparable to the contra-lateral natural tooth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→