MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944504862 · doi:10.1111/cid.12786

Labial soft tissue contour dynamics following immediate implants and immediate provisionalization of single maxillary incisors: A 1‐year prospective study

2019· article· en· W2944504862 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jiehua Tian, Donghao Wei, Yijiao Zhao, Ping Di, Xi Jiang, Ye Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoft tissueMedicineCoronal planeDentistryMaxillary central incisorOrthodonticsIncisorHard tissueMaxillaProspective cohort studySurgeryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Soft tissue dynamics in the esthetic zone are gaining increasing attention in recent years. Emerging intraoral scanning technology allows easier capture of soft tissue contours. Purpose To quantitatively assess the time‐dependent contour alterations of labial soft tissue following single immediate implants and immediate provisionalization (IIPP) in maxillary incisors via intraoral scanning. Materials and Methods This was a prospective cohort study. Thirty eligible consecutive patients were included and received immediate replacement of a failure maxillary single incisor. A screw‐retained immediate restoration was delivered for each patient. Subsequently, the anterior maxillary region was scanned by an intraoral scanning system at four time points: preoperation (baseline, BL), 3 months (3 m), 6 months (6 m), and 12 months (12 m). The Standard Tessellation Language files were exported to a dedicated software and superimposed for visual analysis. At 3, 6, and 12 months, the mid‐facial mucosa level (ML) was assessed, and the precise three‐dimensional (3D) configuration of the altered volume was calculated and reconstructed for visual analysis. Furthermore, quantitative analysis of the reconstructed morphology was performed using the following parameters: mean change in thickness (△ d ), mesio‐distal width ( w ), coronal‐apical height ( h ), and horizontal and vertical position of the thickest point represented by coordinates ( x , z ). Result Twenty‐seven of thirty enrolled patients were finally available for analysis at the 1‐year follow‐up. In general, the frontal view of the reconstructed volume exhibited a crescent shape. The mid‐facial ML change at 3, 6, and 12 months was −0.05 ± 0.36 mm, −0.03 ± 0.32 mm, and −0.24 ± 0.37 mm, respectively ( P = .012). The mean change in thickness at 3 months (△ d 3m ), 6 months (△ d 6m ), and 12 months (△ d 12m ) was 0.50 ± 0.19 mm, 0.59 ± 0.21 mm, and 0.62 ± 0.22 mm, respectively ( P <.001). At 12 months, nine patients had a △ d less than 0.5 mm. The mean △ d 3 m /△ d 12 m and △ d 6 m /△ d 12 m was 0.81 ± 0.17 and 0.96 ± 0.13. The w , h , x , and z results showed no significant differences during the 1‐year observation ( P = .126, P = .324, P = .635, P = .263). At 12 months, w , h , x , and z were 11.57 ± 1.77 mm, 6.46 ± 2.01 mm, 0.03 ± 1.43 mm, and 2.16 ± 0.65 mm, respectively. Conclusion During the 1‐year observation following single IIPP treatment in maxillary incisors, the labial soft tissue contour showed a continuous alteration resulting in a mean change in thickness of 0.62 mm that occurred mainly in the first 3 months and tended to be relatively stable after 6 months, while the crescent‐like shape, width, height, and thickest point position of the alteration volume remained stable after 3 months. No advanced mid‐facial recession was observed.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.368 · 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

Citations44
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related ResearchSame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207