Randomized controlled clinical trial on calcium phosphate coated and conventional SLA surface implants: 1‐year study on survival rate and marginal bone level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Calcium phosphate (CaP)-coated surface showed enhanced contact osteogenesis around dental implant and finally accelerate osseointegration in early healing phase. PURPOSE: The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the peri-implant marginal bone level around uncoated and CaP-coated sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched (SLA) surface implants during the first year after placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was performed upon 34 patients with randomized and double-blinded design. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed immediately after implant placement, at re-entry after 3 months, and after 12 months to evaluate the initial stability and change in the marginal bone level. The distance from the implant shoulder to the top of the bone-to-implant contact was defined as the marginal bone level, and its alteration was measured at 1 year after implant installation. RESULTS: None of the implants failed, and most of them showed a marginal bone loss of less than 1 mm. Small changes in the bone level were noted at all sites in the control and test groups, and there were no clinically significant differences in the changes in the marginal bone. CONCLUSION: Both CaP-coated and uncoated SLA surface implants showed comparably successful marginal bone stability without any complications during the first year after placement.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".