Immediately restored single implants in the aesthetic zone of the maxilla using a novel design: 5‐year results from a prospective single‐arm clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Single implant crowns have become the preferred rehabilitation treatment option for replacing a missing tooth. PURPOSE: This study evaluates 5-year clinical success of using tilted implants placed immediately after extraction followed by rehabilitation with all-ceramic crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven participants requiring 28 single implant crowns in the aesthetic zone of maxilla were recruited to participate in a single-arm clinical trial. All participants were rehabilitated according to immediate implant placement using CP grade 4 titanium implants with roughened surfaces and a 12°-angled platform. Provisional implant crowns were connected within 4 hours of implant placement and loaded according to progressive loading protocol. At 8 weeks (baseline), definitive screw-retained crowns fabricated using densely sintered zirconia abutments with the veneering porcelain were delivered. Participants were followed up to 5 years and 16 participants with 17 single implant crowns attended Year 5 recall. Data collection included changes in marginal bone levels (MBLs), mid-buccal mucosal levels (MBMLs), implant stability quotient (ISQ) values, and any prosthodontic maintenance issues. RESULTS: The mean changes in MBLs at each recall was bone fill of 0.5 ± 1.18 mm (surgery-baseline), increase of 0.1 ± 0.57 mm (baseline-Year 1), and marginal bone loss of 0.1 ± 0.25 mm (Years 1-5). A minimal change occurred with the MBMLs during the observation period. The mean ISQ value at each time point increased from 65.1 (implant placement), to 67.4 (baseline) and 69.9 (Years 1 and 5). Prosthodontic maintenance issues occurred only during the first year which included fracture of veneering ceramic and zirconia abutment as well as aesthetic concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, the data collected would suggest that replacing a single missing tooth using titanium oral implants with 12° platform tilt and zirconia abutments can be a successful rehabilitation option in the esthetically demanding zone of anterior maxilla.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".