Comparing 4‐mm dental implants to longer implants placed in augmented bones in the atrophic posterior mandibles: One‐year results of a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Short implants have been proposed as an alternative for the rehabilitation of atrophic edentulous areas. PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of 4-mm implants vs longer implants in the atrophic posterior mandibles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven patients with bilateral atrophic mandibles were rehabilitated with two to four 4-mm implants and 10 or 8-mm long implants in augmented bone using Guided Bone Regeneration procedure. One side of the mandibles was randomly allocated to vertical augmentation with mixed autogenous bone and allograft. Implants were placed in both sides of the mandible after 6 months, and loaded after another 2 months. Subsequently, implant and prosthesis failures, marginal bone levels changes, and any complication were evaluated after 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: In this study, one patient dropped out and no failures occurred. However, 4-mm implants loss of 0.30 ± 0.34 mm peri-implant marginal bone and long implants loss of 0.47 ± 0.54 mm marginal bone were observed after 1-year of follow-up. The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (difference = -0.16 ± 0.68 mm; P = 0.46). Eight complications occurred in five augmented sites of the patients, and no complication was found to occur in the short implants sites. CONCLUSIONS: One-year after loading, 4-mm implants had similar outcomes as long implants in augmented bone. Therefore, short implants might be a feasible treatment in atrophic mandibles.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".