A retro‐prospective long‐term follow‐up of Brånemark single implants in the anterior maxilla in young adults. Part 1: Clinical and radiographic parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Single implant restorations have become the primary treatment option for young adults with missing anterior teeth. Yet, long-term studies of single-implants are limited in the literature. PURPOSE: To report long-term survival, success, and complications in young adults with single-implants in the anterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A group of 42 patients (mean age 20.7 years) received 53 anterior maxillary single-implants during 1996 and 1997. Data were collected at delivery of the crown, at 1-year examination, and at 14-20-year examination. Descriptive statistics, estimated cumulative survival rates, Pearson correlation test, and t-test were performed. RESULTS: After 14-20 years, 40 out of 42 patients were examined. Two patients were lost to follow-up, two implants failed and ten original single-crown restorations were replaced. Estimated cumulative survival rates were 96.1% for implants and 80.4% for implant-supported crowns. Complications were seen in 21 patients. Mean probing depth was 4.0 ± 1.8 mm and mean marginal bone loss was 0.1 ± 1.1 mm. No correlation was found between marginal bone loss and probing depth, occlusal contact in maximal intercuspal position or usage of nicotine. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term prognosis of single implant treatments in the anterior maxilla in young adults must be regarded as good, with high survival and success rates.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".