The effect of implant placement torque on crestal bone remodeling after 1 year of loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare crestal bone levels (CBLs) after 1 year of loading of self-tapping bone condensing implants placed with high insertion torque (IT) compared to those placed with lower IT. Materials and methods: A retrospective chart review of 66 consecutive patients who received at least one self-tapping bone condensing implant and were in function for at least 1 year was conducted. On the basis of intrasurgical notes documenting the implant IT, the patient population was divided into group A (implant IT, >55 Ncm) and group B (IT, <55 Ncm). Radiographs taken immediately after insertion and during annual follow-up appointments were evaluated for detecting crestal bone loss. The relationship between IT and crestal bone loss, bone density, and jaw location were analyzed, and a P -value of 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Results: A total of 113 self-tapping bone condensing NobelActive TM implants were placed. The average follow-up period from the placement of the implant restoration was 12.87 (±4.83) months. Six implants were classified as failures resulting in overall survival rate of 94.6%. Implants in group A had a mean IT of 67.35 ± 4.0 Ncm, whereas implants in the group B had a mean IT of 37.9 ± 12.62 Ncm. Implants in group A had statistically significant crestal bone loss compared to implants in group B (0.95 ± 1.60 and 0.18 ± 0.68 mm, respectively). Group A implants placed in the mandible showed significantly more pronounced crestal bone loss (2.12 ± 1.99 mm) compared to those placed in the maxilla (0.25 ± 0.65 mm; P <0.05); however, this was not the case in group B implants. Conclusion: Implants inserted with high IT (>55 Ncm) showed more peri-implant bone remodeling than implants inserted with a less assertive IT (<55 Ncm). Bone density and jaw location affect IT and CBLs. Keywords: dental implant, nobelactive, insertion torque, torque, crestal bone level, marginal bone level
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".