MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2965245934 · doi:10.1111/cid.12818

Infraposition of anterior maxillary implant‐supported single‐tooth restorations in adolescent and adult patients—A prospective follow‐up study up to 6 years

2019· article· en· W2965245934 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrée Nilsson, Lars‐Åke Johansson, Victoria Franke Stenport, Ann Wennerberg, Anders Ekfeldt

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOverjetDentistryCrown (dentistry)ImplantMaxillaOrthodonticsIncisorAnterior maxillaOverbiteMaxillary central incisorAnterior teethMolarSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In the maxillary incisor area infraposition of implant restorations can be an esthetic problem. PURPOSE: The aim was to analyze the prevalence of infraposition of single-tooth implant restorations in the anterior maxilla in adolescent and adult patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study comprised of 31 patients, 18 women and 13 men, with 39 restorations and with a mean and median age of 23.8 and 18.8 years, range 17.8 to 52.8 years, at the time of implant crown connection. The mean and median time in function for the restorations was 4.5 and 4.3 years respectively with a range of 3.3 to 6.6 years. RESULTS: Twenty restorations 51%, showed no signs of infraposition. A slight infraposition (<0.5 mm) was seen in 36% of the restorations. Only in one patient, the observed infraposition of the implant crown was more than 1 mm. We found no significant difference of the observed level of vertical infraposition, Score A (0 mm) and Score B (<0.5 mm), in subjects where the restoration was placed before the age of 20 years compared to the older patients. There were no significant differences in changes of the vertical infraposition when comparing different parameters such as age, gender, jaw relation (Angle-classes I-III), overbite/overjet, occlusal contact on the implant crown, bone augmentation before or at implant installation or if orthodontic treatment of the neighboring teeth had been made before or after the implant installation. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, there was a significant yet low correlation between the observed vertical infraposition of the single-tooth implant restoration and the subject's evaluation of the esthetics of the restoration (VAS). Fifty-one percent of the implant-supported crowns, showed no signs of vertical infraposition. A slight infraposition (< 0.5 mm) was however seen in 36% of the restorations. Only one crown showed a vertical infraposition of more than 1 mm.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.354 · 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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→